‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Fascists hate minorities, communists only capitalists.
In the grand scheme of things capitalists only lawyers who work for banks are lower than capitalists.
I had a friend who said even though Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler what makes Hitler worse was the fact that Hitler wanted to kill all those people and more, whereas as Mao only wanted best for his people, and things like the Great Leap Forward were noble ventures which went wrong.
My eyes rolled so much at that I saw my own optic nerves.
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Probably because the ideals of communism are seen as morally superior to Fascism. ‘Equality for all’ is a much easier sell than ‘my nation must conquer all others’
On a balmy day, with a beer in my hand, I could buy into elements of communism
That said, communism probably outdoes Fascism in practice: as a hateful creed. First, in sheer numbers killed, but also in practice, if you look at the actual extremes. Pol Pot was arguably nastier and crazier than Hitler, as Pol Pot killed a third of his own people - quite deliberately (but also killed anyone else he could).
At least Hitler was basically patriotic (I accept this is a low bar - we are comparing genocidal tyrants here)
tbf your opinions when you’ve a drink in your hand are seriously devalued currency
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
The correct English phrase is "ethnic minority", NOT "minority ethnique".
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Fascists hate minorities, communists only capitalists.
In the grand scheme of things capitalists only lawyers who work for banks are lower than capitalists.
I had a friend who said even though Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler what makes Hitler worse was the fact that Hitler wanted to kill all those people and more, whereas as Mao only wanted best for his people, and things like the Great Leap Forward were noble ventures which went wrong.
My eyes rolled so much at that I saw my own optic nerves.
Most who think this way have never read anything about China. Frank Dikotter's books are astonishing, and I believe should be on the GCSE/A level syllabus. Every bit as evil as Hitler. Crucial to understand the modern world.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
I tick "White British" on forms. I used to tick "Any other white background" but now I can't be arsed.
I've gone the other way. I used to tick "White British" but now I have no clue what I am, so I give up and tick "Prefer not to say".
Given the option to "self-describe", I'm very tempted by both "None Of Your Business" and "I Don't Know (Or Care)".
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
Mate I am a healthy young man who grew up in a poor neighbourhood, lets keep it anonymous for your sake. As for your feelings, I was always told if you aren't big enough to take it then don't give it out.
YHWH God, I hate people who bang on that grew up in a poor neighbourhood/working class background as i if somehow makes them better than middle class people.
It doesn't make me better, Corbyn is an example of someone better than me, makes me a bit tougher than him though, which was exactly my point (which even someone from a poor background could have grasped, so much for the advantages of having wealthy parents)
But why mention it at all?
He went off in a mildly threatening direction and I saw that as a chance to fire a cheap insult off at him. If Nigel was the kind of person you could have a reasonable discussion with I would do that, I know him far too well best I'm getting is tit for tat.
Quick question. First off, cracking discussions this morning between you all - what makes PB PB.
My question is would you want me as a member of the Labour Party.
Old white bloke but with many GEs left in me I hope, voted Cons all my life, small state, personal responsibility kind of guy, on the right or left of centre (it's all the same), appalled by Jezza's anti-semitism (or of his presiding over a party wherein anti-semites felt emboldened), appalled also by what the Cons have turned into post 2016 and hence no longer a member.
It may well be that you need me to vote for Lab. Would you welcome me with open arms? Or through gritted teeth? Or would you not want me at all?
I'm not in Labour, not voting Labour and actively want them to lose, so my message to you so you probably shouldn't vote for us...
More seriously if I was in Labour and they were offering something good now I'd be happy for you to vote for the party, I wouldn't want to offer something Tory like just to win your vote as we then may as well all stick with the Tories. I am happy* to vote for a party which has policies I don't support but that appeal to groups Labour needs say like more police which Labour offered.
So I wouldn't be against having an offering which might have some things that appeal to you but designing a manifesto like the ones you've voted for all your life as a long term Tory voter is not something Labour should do for multiple reasons.
Jezza is an old white man, I have relatives who are old white men. Pointing out they are the most racist group, is true and useful for the point I am making, it isn't because I hate them all or they are all bad, and bad health aside I will be old white and male.
Admittedly I wouldn't mind keeping my youth but I can't see me changing race or gender...
I think the frame of reference is challenging. "Tory lite" might take you well into the policy areas of other parties (cf the Cons' recent spending). Likewise, your "good" offering might not be the same for you and me. I suppose the question is how accommodating do you think Lab should be to me (and perhaps others in the middle) before it stopped being the party you support. Although I appreciate that you don't support it!
Did I point out that "old white men" are the most racist group? No. I said Jezza at the very least emboldened anti-semites in his party to think they could be openly anti-semitic.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic. Jews are a minority ethnic group as protected by the 2010 Equalities Act. What is this mad idea that "white" is a unified group? Jews? Slavs? Romany? May have white skin but aren't treated as "white".
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Yes I would expect him to be classed as such, if the term is to have any meaning.
And there's a reason "white supremacists" have always targetted Jews and no, Jews have frequently not been considered to be "white" ethnically.
If you're going to go full on down the rabbit hole of saying "Jews Don't Count" then . . .
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
Ive come across a disturbing number of young white girls called Ebony...
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Probably because the ideals of communism are seen as morally superior to Fascism. ‘Equality for all’ is a much easier sell than ‘my nation must conquer all others’
On a balmy day, with a beer in my hand, I could buy into elements of communism
That said, communism probably outdoes Fascism in practice: as a hateful creed. First, in sheer numbers killed, but also in practice, if you look at the actual extremes. Pol Pot was arguably nastier and crazier than Hitler, as Pol Pot killed a third of his own people - quite deliberately (but also killed anyone else he could).
At least Hitler was basically patriotic (I accept this is a low bar - we are comparing genocidal tyrants here)
The thing with communism is that it has vast potential to kill without really trying.
Its likely that, between 1958 and 1962 alone, 40 million Chinese people perished of famine. Nobody really tried to kill them or planned to. It was just that the regime could not accept or comprehend just how big a catastrophe their plans had become.
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
I hate to say this but I frankly wonder how many teachers would get the reference. We no longer live in a Judeo-Christian culture and haven't for as long as most teachers have been alive.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Yes, the problem isn't that Labour had people with objectionable views in the party (because all parties do, and policing it totally is impossible). It's that they made one of them leader, and he then acted to make the party a "safe space" for those who shared his views - see as evidence the ECHR's findings about interference with the complaints procedure.
The proof that his views were objectionable dates back to long before September 2015, but it only became a serious problem once he was leader of the party.
Ohh you guys and your comedy always dancing between ohh it is actually Corbyn supporters that prove him to be racist ohh no wait nothing to do with members it is just Corbyn.
The reason younger people and minorities supported Labour more under Corbyn and less without him is partially because of his anti racism.
I know this will come as a shock to some wealthy old white people on here but some people see racism as discrimination against minorites...
Some people rather than thinking opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine is the worlds only racism actual think people some support is because of racism.
These views are strong in the most anti racist groups, the youngest and minorities.
Why can't they accept the definition of racism that suits old racist white people?
Selfishness, that's what!
I think that Corbyn's racism defines him as racist. Self-defined going off his forward to Labour's guidance on anti-semitism.
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
Ive come across a disturbing number of young white girls called Ebony...
Are they expected to meet young black boys called Ivory ...?
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Yes, the problem isn't that Labour had people with objectionable views in the party (because all parties do, and policing it totally is impossible). It's that they made one of them leader, and he then acted to make the party a "safe space" for those who shared his views - see as evidence the ECHR's findings about interference with the complaints procedure.
The proof that his views were objectionable dates back to long before September 2015, but it only became a serious problem once he was leader of the party.
Ohh you guys and your comedy always dancing between ohh it is actually Corbyn supporters that prove him to be racist ohh no wait nothing to do with members it is just Corbyn.
The reason younger people and minorities supported Labour more under Corbyn and less without him is partially because of his anti racism.
I know this will come as a shock to some wealthy old white people on here but some people see racism as discrimination against minorites...
Some people rather than thinking opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine is the worlds only racism actual think people some support is because of racism.
These views are strong in the most anti racist groups, the youngest and minorities.
Why can't they accept the definition of racism that suits old racist white people?
Selfishness, that's what!
What dancing? It's clearly both.
Corbyn's election as leader motivated a lot of new members to join, many of whom shared his views on various topics, including anti-racism. So far, so good. Unfortunately, some of the views in question related to things better described as "racism" than "anti-racism".
The nuance you seem to be missing is that it's perfectly possible for people to be very energised by fighting discrimination against some groups, whilst still holding discriminatory attitudes towards others. Real anti-racists understand that, if someone is targeting one group today, they can easily switch focus to a different group tomorrow (First they came for the, etc etc).
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Probably because the ideals of communism are seen as morally superior to Fascism. ‘Equality for all’ is a much easier sell than ‘my nation must conquer all others’
On a balmy day, with a beer in my hand, I could buy into elements of communism
That said, communism probably outdoes Fascism in practice: as a hateful creed. First, in sheer numbers killed, but also in practice, if you look at the actual extremes. Pol Pot was arguably nastier and crazier than Hitler, as Pol Pot killed a third of his own people - quite deliberately (but also killed anyone else he could).
At least Hitler was basically patriotic (I accept this is a low bar - we are comparing genocidal tyrants here)
The thing with communism is that it has vast potential to kill without really trying.
Its likely that, between 1958 and 1962 alone, 40 million Chinese people perished of famine. Nobody really tried to kill them or planned to. It was just that the regime could not accept or comprehend just how big a catastrophe their plans had become.
Collectivising agriculture was the saddest and most perfect case study as to why communism can and always will fail if practiced in such a way.
Just got back from an early May stroll. Sleeting. Labour's problem is Tory popularity. This is mysterious to its members and myself. But it is there.
Or is Johnson popularity?
No. Because, as has been shown. Even the God awful campaign of 2017 resulted in an increase in votes and vote share. Simply this. There has been only one new political idea to respond to the GFC. That was Brexit. The more the Tories have associated themselves with it, the more popular they have become. They are now full fat. Nowhere left to go. If Brexit doesn't solve the ills there will be a need for summat else.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
First?
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
Look at the voting.
Tony Blair was 20 odd years ago I am obviously talking about the current generation not people who were young in the past and are now almost 50.
Yes an 18 year old named James was voting for UKIP in 20XX and is obviously completely separate from anything to do with Corbyn and has very different political aspirations and who he see's as a leader.
I am talking about where the mass of people voted and that many voted for the first time and the enthusiasm, the reason he had such passionate support and passionate opposition in the media is he was the first politician to talk for many under 40's, the levels of engagement from younger people with Labour either side of Corbyn is telling.
Just got back from an early May stroll. Sleeting. Labour's problem is Tory popularity. This is mysterious to its members and myself. But it is there.
Or is Johnson popularity?
No. Because, as has been shown. Even the God awful campaign of 2017 resulted in an increase in votes and vote share. Simply this. There has been only one new political idea to respond to the GFC. That was Brexit. The more the Tories have associated themselves with it, the more popular they have become. They are now full fat. Nowhere left to go. If Brexit doesn't solve the ills there will be a need for summat else.
Well Brexit definitely won't solve the ills - the question is can they can be solved in other ways and will the Tory party be able to identify ways of doing so in an era that is about to witness another set of major structural changes.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Yes, the problem isn't that Labour had people with objectionable views in the party (because all parties do, and policing it totally is impossible). It's that they made one of them leader, and he then acted to make the party a "safe space" for those who shared his views - see as evidence the ECHR's findings about interference with the complaints procedure.
The proof that his views were objectionable dates back to long before September 2015, but it only became a serious problem once he was leader of the party.
Ohh you guys and your comedy always dancing between ohh it is actually Corbyn supporters that prove him to be racist ohh no wait nothing to do with members it is just Corbyn.
The reason younger people and minorities supported Labour more under Corbyn and less without him is partially because of his anti racism.
I know this will come as a shock to some wealthy old white people on here but some people see racism as discrimination against minorites...
Some people rather than thinking opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine is the worlds only racism actual think people some support is because of racism.
These views are strong in the most anti racist groups, the youngest and minorities.
Why can't they accept the definition of racism that suits old racist white people?
Selfishness, that's what!
Many people believe that the Jews don't constitute a put-upon minority. Hence our discussions about BAME.
Is it likely to change to "BAME plus Jews"? Not 100% convinced.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
This tends to illustrate the artificiality of both "White" and "BAME" as categories, as much as anything else. Sid James and William Shatner are as Jewish as Ed Miliband, for instance, and wouldn't be classed as BAME.
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Probably because the ideals of communism are seen as morally superior to Fascism. ‘Equality for all’ is a much easier sell than ‘my nation must conquer all others’
On a balmy day, with a beer in my hand, I could buy into elements of communism
That said, communism probably outdoes Fascism in practice: as a hateful creed. First, in sheer numbers killed, but also in practice, if you look at the actual extremes. Pol Pot was arguably nastier and crazier than Hitler, as Pol Pot killed a third of his own people - quite deliberately (but also killed anyone else he could).
At least Hitler was basically patriotic (I accept this is a low bar - we are comparing genocidal tyrants here)
The thing with communism is that it has vast potential to kill without really trying.
Its likely that, between 1958 and 1962 alone, 40 million Chinese people perished of famine. Nobody really tried to kill them or planned to. It was just that the regime could not accept or comprehend just how big a catastrophe their plans had become.
Collectivising agriculture was the saddest and most perfect case study as to why communism can and always will fail if practiced in such a way.
And yet, when you package it, it sounds so good. It sounds so appealing. Giving the land to the people. Making the land work for the people. Taking the profit motive out of feeding the workers.
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
Ive come across a disturbing number of young white girls called Ebony...
Are they expected to meet young black boys called Ivory ...?
I am actually curious to know why a young white girl being called ebony should be disturbing its a type of tree. Is it purely because the wood is black? When naming children after things do we now need to take into account the colour of said thing? There was I going to go father another child so I could call them Tarmac damn foiled
Just got back from an early May stroll. Sleeting. Labour's problem is Tory popularity. This is mysterious to its members and myself. But it is there.
Or is Johnson popularity?
No. Because, as has been shown. Even the God awful campaign of 2017 resulted in an increase in votes and vote share. Simply this. There has been only one new political idea to respond to the GFC. That was Brexit. The more the Tories have associated themselves with it, the more popular they have become. They are now full fat. Nowhere left to go. If Brexit doesn't solve the ills there will be a need for summat else.
Well Brexit definitely won't solve the ills - the question is can they can be solved in other ways and will the Tory party be able to identify ways of doing so in an era that is about to witness another set of major structural changes.
Well. My money is on no. We shall have to see what the White Paper on Levelling Up has to say I guess. Given it has been 18 months before anyone even thought of thinking about some policies to add to the sloganeering, suggests they aren't exactly bursting with new ideas.
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Fascists hate minorities, communists only capitalists.
In the grand scheme of things capitalists only lawyers who work for banks are lower than capitalists.
I had a friend who said even though Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler what makes Hitler worse was the fact that Hitler wanted to kill all those people and more, whereas as Mao only wanted best for his people, and things like the Great Leap Forward were noble ventures which went wrong.
My eyes rolled so much at that I saw my own optic nerves.
Most who think this way have never read anything about China. Frank Dikotter's books are astonishing, and I believe should be on the GCSE/A level syllabus. Every bit as evil as Hitler. Crucial to understand the modern world.
Bizarre fact. I had lunch with Frank Dikotter’s sister, once. In Nice. We had pissaladiere
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
Ive come across a disturbing number of young white girls called Ebony...
Are they expected to meet young black boys called Ivory ...?
I am actually curious to know why a young white girl being called ebony should be disturbing its a type of tree. Is it purely because the wood is black? When naming children after things do we now need to take into account the colour of said thing? There was I going to go father another child so I could call them Tarmac damn foiled
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
I hate to say this but I frankly wonder how many teachers would get the reference. We no longer live in a Judeo-Christian culture and haven't for as long as most teachers have been alive.
Reckon you are correct.
On great thing about a kid named Beelzebub, is that you've got a great nickname built right in - Bub. Similar for Jezebel - Bel(lle).
Of course you could get (or rather stay) creative, and go with Beel, and Jez - or maybe . . . wait for it . . . Jezza?
This rather ignores that this seat (or its predecessor) last returned a Tory in 1959. The Red Wall seems to be continuing to crumble.
Yet, what about elsewhere in the country? In my rather leafy Bucks village I have yet to see a single Tory banner. A few Labour but many Green signs. Locally the Greens have done quite well before and I would expect that to continue. Locally they don't have to worry about some of their more bonkers national policies. As a traditional Tory I am tempted to give them my vote in the locals which I would never do in a general election.
Speaking as a Tory, I'd vote for Labour before I voted Green.
They are utter luddite reductionist communitarian fundamentalists.
There’s no reason to believe the party wouldn’t follow the same path toward more moderate respectability, if our political system offered it the same chance to grow that the German Greens, who started with a similar mindset, have had.
I think the German Greens and British Greens are miles apart.
+1 - the German Greens are centralist Lib Dems with a green agenda. I suspect if we looked at their policies in detail they are probably identical
My point is that they didn’t start out that way.
Evidence required at this point that the various UK Greens have moved.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
First?
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
Look at the voting.
Tony Blair was 20 odd years ago I am obviously talking about the current generation not people who were young in the past and are now almost 50.
Yes an 18 year old named James was voting for UKIP in 20XX and is obviously completely separate from anything to do with Corbyn and has very different political aspirations and who he see's as a leader.
I am talking about where the mass of people voted and that many voted for the first time and the enthusiasm, the reason he had such passionate support and passionate opposition in the media is he was the first politician to talk for many under 40's, the levels of engagement from younger people with Labour either side of Corbyn is telling.
You're going to have to change your definitions then.
I'm under 40. I voted for Blair in 2001 as an 18 year old. I can assure you that I was not alone in being a young 18 year old then who did, unless you want to relabel Millenials now as being old already.
Sure an 18 year old in 2017 or 2019 won't have had a chance to vote for anyone else before, but that's just timing. There will be 18 year olds voting for the first time in 2024, heck there will be 18 year olds voting for the first time this week.
There was nothing unique about Corbyn, besides timing.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
Edit: also, and I think this is really important: the Milibands are about as Polish as they are British. Their family was in both places for a few hundred years, but, ethnically, the roots go back all over the place, and ultimately to somewhere in the Middle East. Calling them "Polish" as though they're the same as non-Jewish post-2004 EU expansion immigrants is just plain wrong.
Hartlepool 2015 Iain Wright Lab 14,076 35.6 -6.9 Philip Broughton UKIP11,052 28.0 21.0 Richard Royal Con 8,256 20.9 -7.2
Hartlepool 2017 Mike Hill Lab 21,969 52.5 16.9 Carl Jackson Con14,319 34.2 13.3 P Broughton UKIP4,801 11.5 -16.5
Hartlepool 2019 Mike Hill Lab 15,464 37.7 -14.8 S Houghton Con 11,869 28.9 -5.3 Richard Tice BXP 10,603 25.8 25.8
Hartlepool 2021 CON GAIN first time not Labour since 1959
SKS fans please explain how SKS has managed this
You really are stupid enough to go there? Then again why not - Corbyn won Hartlepool 9 times after his election to Parliament. You see that Peter Mandelson - they only voted for him knowing that the Beard of the Year was in parliament as their true representative. Now that Corbyn has been booted out of the Labour Party Pools is going Tory - nuff said.
If they remove IDStarmer and reinstate the Jeremy, all the people who were LLLLL across the contact sheet who said "I'm not voting for him" will vote for him.
Your really so stupid to try the its Corbyns fault despite the facts.
First Labour loss since 1959
Fairy Nuff we know your obsessed you should move on.
No no no, the loss of the red wall predates Corbyn so it isn't his fault. The dam has been eroded over time, with no maintenance done by an arrogant local Labour hierarchy who think they are born to rule because its all the Tories fault.
Labour's problem is that the dam burst thanks to Brexit. What you propose is that Labour go back to the failed Corbyn experiment, have a slate of wazzocks like Sam Tarry, Zarah Sultana and Laura Pillock as MPs and double down on policy so that Labour only talk to the bottom 5% and blame everything on the top 1% and say fuck all to everyone else.
Labour's solution is not Starmer. Labour's solution is not Corbyn. It is not either / or you tosspot. As I tweeted earlier this morning the left and right in Labour fight like ferrets in a sack and neither side understand why you're in the sack in the first place.
Labour reject who jumped in the sack to fight like a ferret in 2015 against Corbyn and fought like a ferret every day for 3 years criticises sack fighting.
Said ex Labour hypocrite after quitting sack fighting applies to rejoin Labour in order to fight like a ferret against people like "Laura Pillock"
Rejected for being a divisive nasty name calling piece of work so sad ex sack fighting poster is now politically homeless
Sad tale really
As I said shortly after the event, my abrupt about-face to try and rejoin the Labour Party was done in the middle of a mental health crisis. As that was the stupidest action my illness generated I remain grateful!
Then it cleared, and like Dr Zimsky at the end of The Core dictating notes for his book whilst pinned underneath a nuclear bomb that was about to destroy him and his notes, I looked at myself, asked "what the fuck am I doing" and roared with laughter.
Glad that my mental heath disaster makes you roar with laughter as well.
You called me a toss pot is that part of your condition or are you just a nasty piece of work?
No I called you a tosspot because you are kind of person who takes the piss out of the mentally ill.
Source?
I take the piss out of you because you are a hypocrite who lacks humility and a name calling nasty piece of work.
Source? You taking the piss out of my mental health crisis last year during which I tried to rejoin the Labour Party.
Have no problem you calling me a hypocrite - as always I take the opinions of people I have no respect for under advisement. But taking the piss out of people for having an openly confessed breakdown is what makes you a tosspot.
You are a massive asset to the Labour Party! You and Tarry and Sultana and Pillock and the rest of them.
Labour got the kind of racist centrist leader you wanted over the type of leader BJO liked and Labour are tanking in the polls, clearly it is the Blairite faction you are part of which is the problem in Labour.
Maybe the problem is having so many activists keener to see the opposing faction within their own ranks fail than in winning round voters with some thought through ideas and taking the fight to the Tories?
I joined Labour a few years ago full of enthusiasm and verve excited and hoping to get a Labour government.
Prior to ever joining Labour they weren't worth voting for in an election but I preferred them to the Tories and hoped (a little) that they beat them.
My current attitude of delighting in seeing the evil people running the Labour party fail is my experience of what absolutely awful vile people they are.
Boris Johnson is a far lesser evil than the right of the Labour party, I could never vote Conservative but I would never ever ever vote for those lot on pain of death.
This is seriously distorted thinking, bordering on disturbed.
SKS is not evil, he is well meaning but boring with few original ideas. Dodds is not evil, she is bright and technically literate but even duller than her boss. Evil was the last regime with its blatant anti-Semitism, its hatred for their own country and the willful blindness that this led to supporting anyone else on the planet that hated us no matter how appalling they were. Labour may not win under SKS but it is no longer a national disgrace and that is progress of a sort.
Starmer isn't releasing the Forde report because kicking out the racists would kill his support in the party.
I know to some here racism is only a failure to support the brutal oocupation of Palestine rather than actual racism against minorities but there is a reason Labour are losing votes among minorities and younger people (two groups most against racism)
We have swapped an anti racist leader for a racist one.
I realise it is the kind of racism many rich white people who temporarily pretended to care about racism don't actually care about so it doesn't matter.
In fact many wealthy older white people will be delighted Labour now has a racist leader, even if it means the Conservatives have no opposition and are losing votes and popularity as a result.
Don't be too happy about it though, in the medium to long term the racists who like Starmer will be mostly dead whilst the anti racists who supported Corbyn will still be alive and kicking.
So only matter of time before Labour goes back to (greater) electability and anti racism to the dismay of many racists
I literally don’t understand this. In what way is Starmer ‘racist’?!
Supports the brutal occupation of Palestine apparently. Not that this is about obsessive fixation on Israel.
I thought the Forde report that some on the left accuse SKS of holding up was looking into allegedly racist posts by party staffers. I think there is some genuine reason for the delay in publication though.
There is also an accusation that the party treats allegations of islamophobia less seriously than it should and there is currently a court case on that issue.
Not sure its anything to do with "Supports the brutal occupation of Palestine apparently"
Then why'd jezziah bring it up? It wasnt me who considered it relevant to put the things together.
Mate I am a healthy young man who grew up in a poor neighbourhood, lets keep it anonymous for your sake. As for your feelings, I was always told if you aren't big enough to take it then don't give it out.
YHWH God, I hate people who bang on that grew up in a poor neighbourhood/working class background as i if somehow makes them better than middle class people.
It doesn't make me better, Corbyn is an example of someone better than me, makes me a bit tougher than him though, which was exactly my point (which even someone from a poor background could have grasped, so much for the advantages of having wealthy parents)
But why mention it at all?
He went off in a mildly threatening direction and I saw that as a chance to fire a cheap insult off at him. If Nigel was the kind of person you could have a reasonable discussion with I would do that, I know him far too well best I'm getting is tit for tat.
Quick question. First off, cracking discussions this morning between you all - what makes PB PB.
My question is would you want me as a member of the Labour Party.
Old white bloke but with many GEs left in me I hope, voted Cons all my life, small state, personal responsibility kind of guy, on the right or left of centre (it's all the same), appalled by Jezza's anti-semitism (or of his presiding over a party wherein anti-semites felt emboldened), appalled also by what the Cons have turned into post 2016 and hence no longer a member.
It may well be that you need me to vote for Lab. Would you welcome me with open arms? Or through gritted teeth? Or would you not want me at all?
I'm not in Labour, not voting Labour and actively want them to lose, so my message to you so you probably shouldn't vote for us...
More seriously if I was in Labour and they were offering something good now I'd be happy for you to vote for the party, I wouldn't want to offer something Tory like just to win your vote as we then may as well all stick with the Tories. I am happy* to vote for a party which has policies I don't support but that appeal to groups Labour needs say like more police which Labour offered.
So I wouldn't be against having an offering which might have some things that appeal to you but designing a manifesto like the ones you've voted for all your life as a long term Tory voter is not something Labour should do for multiple reasons.
Jezza is an old white man, I have relatives who are old white men. Pointing out they are the most racist group, is true and useful for the point I am making, it isn't because I hate them all or they are all bad, and bad health aside I will be old white and male.
Admittedly I wouldn't mind keeping my youth but I can't see me changing race or gender...
I think the frame of reference is challenging. "Tory lite" might take you well into the policy areas of other parties (cf the Cons' recent spending). Likewise, your "good" offering might not be the same for you and me. I suppose the question is how accommodating do you think Lab should be to me (and perhaps others in the middle) before it stopped being the party you support. Although I appreciate that you don't support it!
Did I point out that "old white men" are the most racist group? No. I said Jezza at the very least emboldened anti-semites in his party to think they could be openly anti-semitic.
TBH I view discrimination against minorities as racism whereas for you it is limited to opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine. We can go tit for tat on this particular topic if you like but nothing will be achieved, Young people and minorities are as stuck in their definition of racism as you are.
The comment about old white men was in reference to you calling yourself one and me clarifying my position on them.
As for Labour and its offering I am mildly sceptical there could be something that appears to both you and me, neither of us are actually the owners of a potential manifesto the question can be framed in terms of either of us compromising and sacrificing x or y, without either of us necessarily being unreasonable people the ground between us is probably too wide.
You are a long term Tory voter and I am someone who hasn't voted Labour previously because I thought they were too right wing. One of us would have to have a serious change of politics or the opponent be some kind of Adolf Hitler for us to be united IMO (said with no malice)
Just got back from an early May stroll. Sleeting. Labour's problem is Tory popularity. This is mysterious to its members and myself. But it is there.
Or is Johnson popularity?
No. Because, as has been shown. Even the God awful campaign of 2017 resulted in an increase in votes and vote share. Simply this. There has been only one new political idea to respond to the GFC. That was Brexit. The more the Tories have associated themselves with it, the more popular they have become. They are now full fat. Nowhere left to go. If Brexit doesn't solve the ills there will be a need for summat else.
Well Brexit definitely won't solve the ills - the question is can they can be solved in other ways and will the Tory party be able to identify ways of doing so in an era that is about to witness another set of major structural changes.
Well. My money is on no. We shall have to see what the White Paper on Levelling Up has to say I guess. Given it has been 18 months before anyone even thought of thinking about some policies to add to the sloganeering, suggests they aren't exactly bursting with new ideas.
As would mine - I can see exceptions (Darlington should do well from the Treasury and surrounding pieces of investment) but that will be a combination of luck and location far more than real planning.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
See my post earlier
Arabs and jews are both BAME or are both not BAME as they are both semitic people. Can't therefore have one BAME and one not
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
You assure us it is only right wing anti-Wokers that obsess about the Meaning of BAME. And yet, here you are
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Fascists hate minorities, communists only capitalists.
In the grand scheme of things capitalists only lawyers who work for banks are lower than capitalists.
I had a friend who said even though Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler what makes Hitler worse was the fact that Hitler wanted to kill all those people and more, whereas as Mao only wanted best for his people, and things like the Great Leap Forward were noble ventures which went wrong.
My eyes rolled so much at that I saw my own optic nerves.
Most who think this way have never read anything about China. Frank Dikotter's books are astonishing, and I believe should be on the GCSE/A level syllabus. Every bit as evil as Hitler. Crucial to understand the modern world.
Bizarre fact. I had lunch with Frank Dikotter’s sister, once. In Nice. We had pissaladiere
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Yes, the problem isn't that Labour had people with objectionable views in the party (because all parties do, and policing it totally is impossible). It's that they made one of them leader, and he then acted to make the party a "safe space" for those who shared his views - see as evidence the ECHR's findings about interference with the complaints procedure.
The proof that his views were objectionable dates back to long before September 2015, but it only became a serious problem once he was leader of the party.
Ohh you guys and your comedy always dancing between ohh it is actually Corbyn supporters that prove him to be racist ohh no wait nothing to do with members it is just Corbyn.
The reason younger people and minorities supported Labour more under Corbyn and less without him is partially because of his anti racism.
I know this will come as a shock to some wealthy old white people on here but some people see racism as discrimination against minorites...
Some people rather than thinking opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine is the worlds only racism actual think people some support is because of racism.
These views are strong in the most anti racist groups, the youngest and minorities.
Why can't they accept the definition of racism that suits old racist white people?
Selfishness, that's what!
Many people believe that the Jews don't constitute a put-upon minority. Hence our discussions about BAME.
Is it likely to change to "BAME plus Jews"? Not 100% convinced.
Racism against Jewish people is no different (in immorality) to racism against any other group. The left (or young people or minorities) wouldn't be against Jewish people being classed as BAME more than any other group probably less so.
Truth be told I sort of assumed Jewish people already counted as BAME
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Probably because the ideals of communism are seen as morally superior to Fascism. ‘Equality for all’ is a much easier sell than ‘my nation must conquer all others’
On a balmy day, with a beer in my hand, I could buy into elements of communism
That said, communism probably outdoes Fascism in practice: as a hateful creed. First, in sheer numbers killed, but also in practice, if you look at the actual extremes. Pol Pot was arguably nastier and crazier than Hitler, as Pol Pot killed a third of his own people - quite deliberately (but also killed anyone else he could).
At least Hitler was basically patriotic (I accept this is a low bar - we are comparing genocidal tyrants here)
The thing with communism is that it has vast potential to kill without really trying.
Its likely that, between 1958 and 1962 alone, 40 million Chinese people perished of famine. Nobody really tried to kill them or planned to. It was just that the regime could not accept or comprehend just how big a catastrophe their plans had become.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Are arabs BAME? I believe the answer is yes. Logically therefore jews must be BAME as they have the same origins both are semitic (though for some reason anti semite is only used for jew haters)
Either both are or both aren't. Try walking into a momentum meeting and telling people Palestinians are not BAME and let us know how it goes
I think you're simplifying rather. Woody Allen shares an ethnic grouping with Yasser Arafat?
Mate I am a healthy young man who grew up in a poor neighbourhood, lets keep it anonymous for your sake. As for your feelings, I was always told if you aren't big enough to take it then don't give it out.
YHWH God, I hate people who bang on that grew up in a poor neighbourhood/working class background as i if somehow makes them better than middle class people.
It doesn't make me better, Corbyn is an example of someone better than me, makes me a bit tougher than him though, which was exactly my point (which even someone from a poor background could have grasped, so much for the advantages of having wealthy parents)
But why mention it at all?
He went off in a mildly threatening direction and I saw that as a chance to fire a cheap insult off at him. If Nigel was the kind of person you could have a reasonable discussion with I would do that, I know him far too well best I'm getting is tit for tat.
Quick question. First off, cracking discussions this morning between you all - what makes PB PB.
My question is would you want me as a member of the Labour Party.
Old white bloke but with many GEs left in me I hope, voted Cons all my life, small state, personal responsibility kind of guy, on the right or left of centre (it's all the same), appalled by Jezza's anti-semitism (or of his presiding over a party wherein anti-semites felt emboldened), appalled also by what the Cons have turned into post 2016 and hence no longer a member.
It may well be that you need me to vote for Lab. Would you welcome me with open arms? Or through gritted teeth? Or would you not want me at all?
I'm not in Labour, not voting Labour and actively want them to lose, so my message to you so you probably shouldn't vote for us...
More seriously if I was in Labour and they were offering something good now I'd be happy for you to vote for the party, I wouldn't want to offer something Tory like just to win your vote as we then may as well all stick with the Tories. I am happy* to vote for a party which has policies I don't support but that appeal to groups Labour needs say like more police which Labour offered.
So I wouldn't be against having an offering which might have some things that appeal to you but designing a manifesto like the ones you've voted for all your life as a long term Tory voter is not something Labour should do for multiple reasons.
Jezza is an old white man, I have relatives who are old white men. Pointing out they are the most racist group, is true and useful for the point I am making, it isn't because I hate them all or they are all bad, and bad health aside I will be old white and male.
Admittedly I wouldn't mind keeping my youth but I can't see me changing race or gender...
I think the frame of reference is challenging. "Tory lite" might take you well into the policy areas of other parties (cf the Cons' recent spending). Likewise, your "good" offering might not be the same for you and me. I suppose the question is how accommodating do you think Lab should be to me (and perhaps others in the middle) before it stopped being the party you support. Although I appreciate that you don't support it!
Did I point out that "old white men" are the most racist group? No. I said Jezza at the very least emboldened anti-semites in his party to think they could be openly anti-semitic.
TBH I view discrimination against minorities as racism whereas for you it is limited to opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine. We can go tit for tat on this particular topic if you like but nothing will be achieved, Young people and minorities are as stuck in their definition of racism as you are.
The comment about old white men was in reference to you calling yourself one and me clarifying my position on them.
As for Labour and its offering I am mildly sceptical there could be something that appears to both you and me, neither of us are actually the owners of a potential manifesto the question can be framed in terms of either of us compromising and sacrificing x or y, without either of us necessarily being unreasonable people the ground between us is probably too wide.
You are a long term Tory voter and I am someone who hasn't voted Labour previously because I thought they were too right wing. One of us would have to have a serious change of politics or the opponent be some kind of Adolf Hitler for us to be united IMO (said with no malice)
I don't think I have ever mentioned the word Palestine. And I think the ECHR was pretty clear on the Labour Party and anti-semitism:
The Labour party could have tackled antisemitism more effectively “if the leadership had chosen to do so”.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Are arabs BAME? I believe the answer is yes. Logically therefore jews must be BAME as they have the same origins both are semitic (though for some reason anti semite is only used for jew haters)
Either both are or both aren't. Try walking into a momentum meeting and telling people Palestinians are not BAME and let us know how it goes
I think you're simplifying rather. Woody Allen shares an ethnic grouping with Yasser Arafat?
Ashkenazi Jewish people often have DNA that is anywhere between 60 and 85 per cent European, and matrilineal DNA is nearly all European. This tends to make the whole area somewhat culturally subjective, as well as historically vexed - to put it as cautiously as possible.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
See my post earlier
Arabs and jews are both BAME or are both not BAME as they are both semitic people. Can't therefore have one BAME and one not
Surely European jews are BAME in the sense that Danny Dyer is French.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
You assure us it is only right wing anti-Wokers that obsess about the Meaning of BAME. And yet, here you are
I was answering Endillion's query in particular, and in general bringing some clarity to the usual confused, virtue-signaling tosh spouted by both sides in this area.
Just got back from an early May stroll. Sleeting. Labour's problem is Tory popularity. This is mysterious to its members and myself. But it is there.
Or is Johnson popularity?
No. Because, as has been shown. Even the God awful campaign of 2017 resulted in an increase in votes and vote share. Simply this. There has been only one new political idea to respond to the GFC. That was Brexit. The more the Tories have associated themselves with it, the more popular they have become. They are now full fat. Nowhere left to go. If Brexit doesn't solve the ills there will be a need for summat else.
Well Brexit definitely won't solve the ills - the question is can they can be solved in other ways and will the Tory party be able to identify ways of doing so in an era that is about to witness another set of major structural changes.
Well. My money is on no. We shall have to see what the White Paper on Levelling Up has to say I guess. Given it has been 18 months before anyone even thought of thinking about some policies to add to the sloganeering, suggests they aren't exactly bursting with new ideas.
As would mine - I can see exceptions (Darlington should do well from the Treasury and surrounding pieces of investment) but that will be a combination of luck and location far more than real planning.
Yep. Not everywhere in the Red Wall can have a huge bung. Not unless you start taxing and disinvesting from already affluent areas in the SE. Herein lies the Tory dilemma of the future.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Yes, the problem isn't that Labour had people with objectionable views in the party (because all parties do, and policing it totally is impossible). It's that they made one of them leader, and he then acted to make the party a "safe space" for those who shared his views - see as evidence the ECHR's findings about interference with the complaints procedure.
The proof that his views were objectionable dates back to long before September 2015, but it only became a serious problem once he was leader of the party.
Ohh you guys and your comedy always dancing between ohh it is actually Corbyn supporters that prove him to be racist ohh no wait nothing to do with members it is just Corbyn.
The reason younger people and minorities supported Labour more under Corbyn and less without him is partially because of his anti racism.
I know this will come as a shock to some wealthy old white people on here but some people see racism as discrimination against minorites...
Some people rather than thinking opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine is the worlds only racism actual think people some support is because of racism.
These views are strong in the most anti racist groups, the youngest and minorities.
Why can't they accept the definition of racism that suits old racist white people?
Selfishness, that's what!
What dancing? It's clearly both.
Corbyn's election as leader motivated a lot of new members to join, many of whom shared his views on various topics, including anti-racism. So far, so good. Unfortunately, some of the views in question related to things better described as "racism" than "anti-racism".
The nuance you seem to be missing is that it's perfectly possible for people to be very energised by fighting discrimination against some groups, whilst still holding discriminatory attitudes towards others. Real anti-racists understand that, if someone is targeting one group today, they can easily switch focus to a different group tomorrow (First they came for the, etc etc).
Ohh right it is both now... sure...
Racist views in Labour dropped thanks to the membership surge Corbyn inspired, with old tired racists leaving and young people and minorities who oppose racism take their place.
If Corbyn was the racist you and the Daily Mail make him out to be, in between warning us of the dangers of Muslim and immigrants (it is almost as if it is actually his opponents that a racist) and other groups the party would have started to look more like a Nigel Farage or a Boris Johnson led party...
Except the exact happened, the party went in a much more diverse less racist direction inspired by Corbyn.
Has it ever occurred to you that the Daily Mail, the Sun and other deeply racist right wing news organisations castigated Labour for being racist when they would have supported the party were it actually racist?
Why did all these racist groups and people hate Labour and all these anti racist groups and people love Labour under Corbyn, it literally doesn't make sense!
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
See my post earlier
Arabs and jews are both BAME or are both not BAME as they are both semitic people. Can't therefore have one BAME and one not
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
First?
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Yes, the problem isn't that Labour had people with objectionable views in the party (because all parties do, and policing it totally is impossible). It's that they made one of them leader, and he then acted to make the party a "safe space" for those who shared his views - see as evidence the ECHR's findings about interference with the complaints procedure.
The proof that his views were objectionable dates back to long before September 2015, but it only became a serious problem once he was leader of the party.
Ohh you guys and your comedy always dancing between ohh it is actually Corbyn supporters that prove him to be racist ohh no wait nothing to do with members it is just Corbyn.
The reason younger people and minorities supported Labour more under Corbyn and less without him is partially because of his anti racism.
I know this will come as a shock to some wealthy old white people on here but some people see racism as discrimination against minorites...
Some people rather than thinking opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine is the worlds only racism actual think people some support is because of racism.
These views are strong in the most anti racist groups, the youngest and minorities.
Why can't they accept the definition of racism that suits old racist white people?
Selfishness, that's what!
Many people believe that the Jews don't constitute a put-upon minority. Hence our discussions about BAME.
Is it likely to change to "BAME plus Jews"? Not 100% convinced.
Racism against Jewish people is no different (in immorality) to racism against any other group. The left (or young people or minorities) wouldn't be against Jewish people being classed as BAME more than any other group probably less so.
Truth be told I sort of assumed Jewish people already counted as BAME
I think that was the subject of David Baddiel's book. Which I must order now that it seems it is interesting.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Are arabs BAME? I believe the answer is yes. Logically therefore jews must be BAME as they have the same origins both are semitic (though for some reason anti semite is only used for jew haters)
Either both are or both aren't. Try walking into a momentum meeting and telling people Palestinians are not BAME and let us know how it goes
In my area many people whose parents came over from north Africa apparently put down White Other as their ethnicity.
this is a very serious electoral offence. I thought from Guido it was just some home made brownies handed out. This is the very literal definition of 'treating'. People can go to jail for this..
Apart from the obvious breaking of the law, wtaf, those are expensive, cost inefficient, and this is for West Yorkshire, which broke 2-1 to Lab in 2016 for the PCC elections, and where Lab were 6% ahead in 2019. Surely this race isn't anywhere near being live?
Yes, it must just be a small batch for activists. I dont believe any candidate with an agent would make such a foolish mistake.
It had better (for them) turn out that they’re giving cake to their own volunteers, rather than to the general public.
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
Well. in fairness, Communism never did anything wrong did it 🤦♂️
Dorothy Kuya was no idealistic "private" Communist, incidentally: she was a lifelong member of the CPGB, a creature entirely controlled by the KGB, which worked to destroy Britain down to the last day of the Soviet Union. Quote Tweet
In short, a traitor.
You have to break a few (million) eggs David
Maybe it was my childhood experiences in Germany but I have never understood why supporters of communism are thought morally superior to supporters of fascism. Each is as disgusting as the other and can match one another corpse for corpse.
Fascists hate minorities, communists only capitalists.
In the grand scheme of things capitalists only lawyers who work for banks are lower than capitalists.
I had a friend who said even though Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler what makes Hitler worse was the fact that Hitler wanted to kill all those people and more, whereas as Mao only wanted best for his people, and things like the Great Leap Forward were noble ventures which went wrong.
My eyes rolled so much at that I saw my own optic nerves.
Communism being a good idea gone wrong is a bizarrely prevalent or at least accepted view.
I dont get it, since you dont need to be some rigid uber capitalist instead, there are middle grounds.
Mate I am a healthy young man who grew up in a poor neighbourhood, lets keep it anonymous for your sake. As for your feelings, I was always told if you aren't big enough to take it then don't give it out.
YHWH God, I hate people who bang on that grew up in a poor neighbourhood/working class background as i if somehow makes them better than middle class people.
It doesn't make me better, Corbyn is an example of someone better than me, makes me a bit tougher than him though, which was exactly my point (which even someone from a poor background could have grasped, so much for the advantages of having wealthy parents)
But why mention it at all?
He went off in a mildly threatening direction and I saw that as a chance to fire a cheap insult off at him. If Nigel was the kind of person you could have a reasonable discussion with I would do that, I know him far too well best I'm getting is tit for tat.
Quick question. First off, cracking discussions this morning between you all - what makes PB PB.
My question is would you want me as a member of the Labour Party.
Old white bloke but with many GEs left in me I hope, voted Cons all my life, small state, personal responsibility kind of guy, on the right or left of centre (it's all the same), appalled by Jezza's anti-semitism (or of his presiding over a party wherein anti-semites felt emboldened), appalled also by what the Cons have turned into post 2016 and hence no longer a member.
It may well be that you need me to vote for Lab. Would you welcome me with open arms? Or through gritted teeth? Or would you not want me at all?
I'm not in Labour, not voting Labour and actively want them to lose, so my message to you so you probably shouldn't vote for us...
More seriously if I was in Labour and they were offering something good now I'd be happy for you to vote for the party, I wouldn't want to offer something Tory like just to win your vote as we then may as well all stick with the Tories. I am happy* to vote for a party which has policies I don't support but that appeal to groups Labour needs say like more police which Labour offered.
So I wouldn't be against having an offering which might have some things that appeal to you but designing a manifesto like the ones you've voted for all your life as a long term Tory voter is not something Labour should do for multiple reasons.
Jezza is an old white man, I have relatives who are old white men. Pointing out they are the most racist group, is true and useful for the point I am making, it isn't because I hate them all or they are all bad, and bad health aside I will be old white and male.
Admittedly I wouldn't mind keeping my youth but I can't see me changing race or gender...
I think the frame of reference is challenging. "Tory lite" might take you well into the policy areas of other parties (cf the Cons' recent spending). Likewise, your "good" offering might not be the same for you and me. I suppose the question is how accommodating do you think Lab should be to me (and perhaps others in the middle) before it stopped being the party you support. Although I appreciate that you don't support it!
Did I point out that "old white men" are the most racist group? No. I said Jezza at the very least emboldened anti-semites in his party to think they could be openly anti-semitic.
TBH I view discrimination against minorities as racism whereas for you it is limited to opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine. We can go tit for tat on this particular topic if you like but nothing will be achieved, Young people and minorities are as stuck in their definition of racism as you are.
The comment about old white men was in reference to you calling yourself one and me clarifying my position on them.
As for Labour and its offering I am mildly sceptical there could be something that appears to both you and me, neither of us are actually the owners of a potential manifesto the question can be framed in terms of either of us compromising and sacrificing x or y, without either of us necessarily being unreasonable people the ground between us is probably too wide.
You are a long term Tory voter and I am someone who hasn't voted Labour previously because I thought they were too right wing. One of us would have to have a serious change of politics or the opponent be some kind of Adolf Hitler for us to be united IMO (said with no malice)
I don't think I have ever mentioned the word Palestine. And I think the ECHR was pretty clear on the Labour Party and anti-semitism:
The Labour party could have tackled antisemitism more effectively “if the leadership had chosen to do so”.
As the ECHR is a completely apolitical organisation I have been trying to find their report into the deeply troubling racism within the Conservatives...
Any clues mate?
You think Corbyn is a racist because he doesn't support the crutal occupation of Palestine, I think he isn't a racist because he doesn't support discrimination against minorities.
For Corbyn supporters being a group containing many of the victims of discrimination racism is actually about racism and not some sneaky way to criticise opposition to occupation.
I see we have decided to stick with tit for tat on this.
Hartlepool 2015 Iain Wright Lab 14,076 35.6 -6.9 Philip Broughton UKIP11,052 28.0 21.0 Richard Royal Con 8,256 20.9 -7.2
Hartlepool 2017 Mike Hill Lab 21,969 52.5 16.9 Carl Jackson Con14,319 34.2 13.3 P Broughton UKIP4,801 11.5 -16.5
Hartlepool 2019 Mike Hill Lab 15,464 37.7 -14.8 S Houghton Con 11,869 28.9 -5.3 Richard Tice BXP 10,603 25.8 25.8
Hartlepool 2021 CON GAIN first time not Labour since 1959
SKS fans please explain how SKS has managed this
You really are stupid enough to go there? Then again why not - Corbyn won Hartlepool 9 times after his election to Parliament. You see that Peter Mandelson - they only voted for him knowing that the Beard of the Year was in parliament as their true representative. Now that Corbyn has been booted out of the Labour Party Pools is going Tory - nuff said.
If they remove IDStarmer and reinstate the Jeremy, all the people who were LLLLL across the contact sheet who said "I'm not voting for him" will vote for him.
Your really so stupid to try the its Corbyns fault despite the facts.
First Labour loss since 1959
Fairy Nuff we know your obsessed you should move on.
No no no, the loss of the red wall predates Corbyn so it isn't his fault. The dam has been eroded over time, with no maintenance done by an arrogant local Labour hierarchy who think they are born to rule because its all the Tories fault.
Labour's problem is that the dam burst thanks to Brexit. What you propose is that Labour go back to the failed Corbyn experiment, have a slate of wazzocks like Sam Tarry, Zarah Sultana and Laura Pillock as MPs and double down on policy so that Labour only talk to the bottom 5% and blame everything on the top 1% and say fuck all to everyone else.
Labour's solution is not Starmer. Labour's solution is not Corbyn. It is not either / or you tosspot. As I tweeted earlier this morning the left and right in Labour fight like ferrets in a sack and neither side understand why you're in the sack in the first place.
Labour reject who jumped in the sack to fight like a ferret in 2015 against Corbyn and fought like a ferret every day for 3 years criticises sack fighting.
Said ex Labour hypocrite after quitting sack fighting applies to rejoin Labour in order to fight like a ferret against people like "Laura Pillock"
Rejected for being a divisive nasty name calling piece of work so sad ex sack fighting poster is now politically homeless
Sad tale really
As I said shortly after the event, my abrupt about-face to try and rejoin the Labour Party was done in the middle of a mental health crisis. As that was the stupidest action my illness generated I remain grateful!
Then it cleared, and like Dr Zimsky at the end of The Core dictating notes for his book whilst pinned underneath a nuclear bomb that was about to destroy him and his notes, I looked at myself, asked "what the fuck am I doing" and roared with laughter.
Glad that my mental heath disaster makes you roar with laughter as well.
You called me a toss pot is that part of your condition or are you just a nasty piece of work?
No I called you a tosspot because you are kind of person who takes the piss out of the mentally ill.
Source?
I take the piss out of you because you are a hypocrite who lacks humility and a name calling nasty piece of work.
Source? You taking the piss out of my mental health crisis last year during which I tried to rejoin the Labour Party.
Have no problem you calling me a hypocrite - as always I take the opinions of people I have no respect for under advisement. But taking the piss out of people for having an openly confessed breakdown is what makes you a tosspot.
You are a massive asset to the Labour Party! You and Tarry and Sultana and Pillock and the rest of them.
Labour got the kind of racist centrist leader you wanted over the type of leader BJO liked and Labour are tanking in the polls, clearly it is the Blairite faction you are part of which is the problem in Labour.
Maybe the problem is having so many activists keener to see the opposing faction within their own ranks fail than in winning round voters with some thought through ideas and taking the fight to the Tories?
I joined Labour a few years ago full of enthusiasm and verve excited and hoping to get a Labour government.
Prior to ever joining Labour they weren't worth voting for in an election but I preferred them to the Tories and hoped (a little) that they beat them.
My current attitude of delighting in seeing the evil people running the Labour party fail is my experience of what absolutely awful vile people they are.
Boris Johnson is a far lesser evil than the right of the Labour party, I could never vote Conservative but I would never ever ever vote for those lot on pain of death.
This is seriously distorted thinking, bordering on disturbed.
SKS is not evil, he is well meaning but boring with few original ideas. Dodds is not evil, she is bright and technically literate but even duller than her boss. Evil was the last regime with its blatant anti-Semitism, its hatred for their own country and the willful blindness that this led to supporting anyone else on the planet that hated us no matter how appalling they were. Labour may not win under SKS but it is no longer a national disgrace and that is progress of a sort.
Starmer isn't releasing the Forde report because kicking out the racists would kill his support in the party.
I know to some here racism is only a failure to support the brutal oocupation of Palestine rather than actual racism against minorities but there is a reason Labour are losing votes among minorities and younger people (two groups most against racism)
We have swapped an anti racist leader for a racist one.
I realise it is the kind of racism many rich white people who temporarily pretended to care about racism don't actually care about so it doesn't matter.
In fact many wealthy older white people will be delighted Labour now has a racist leader, even if it means the Conservatives have no opposition and are losing votes and popularity as a result.
Don't be too happy about it though, in the medium to long term the racists who like Starmer will be mostly dead whilst the anti racists who supported Corbyn will still be alive and kicking.
So only matter of time before Labour goes back to (greater) electability and anti racism to the dismay of many racists
I literally don’t understand this. In what way is Starmer ‘racist’?!
Supports the brutal occupation of Palestine apparently. Not that this is about obsessive fixation on Israel.
I thought the Forde report that some on the left accuse SKS of holding up was looking into allegedly racist posts by party staffers. I think there is some genuine reason for the delay in publication though.
There is also an accusation that the party treats allegations of islamophobia less seriously than it should and there is currently a court case on that issue.
Not sure its anything to do with "Supports the brutal occupation of Palestine apparently"
Then why'd jezziah bring it up? It wasnt me who considered it relevant to put the things together.
Bring what up?
Starmer being a racist?
Calling the Labour leader racist is something this forum has loved to do. Now we actually do have a racist Labour leader I will damn well mention it!
Just got back from an early May stroll. Sleeting. Labour's problem is Tory popularity. This is mysterious to its members and myself. But it is there.
Not a fan myself, but I do like to remind people when they talk about how hated the Tories are that they are the most popular political party across the UK (not in the UK), and have been for some time.
The flip side is of course remain electorally very popular too with loads of people, but whilst a group can be be both popular and hated, it's worth people remembering the former part is true as well as the latter.
Mate I am a healthy young man who grew up in a poor neighbourhood, lets keep it anonymous for your sake. As for your feelings, I was always told if you aren't big enough to take it then don't give it out.
YHWH God, I hate people who bang on that grew up in a poor neighbourhood/working class background as i if somehow makes them better than middle class people.
It doesn't make me better, Corbyn is an example of someone better than me, makes me a bit tougher than him though, which was exactly my point (which even someone from a poor background could have grasped, so much for the advantages of having wealthy parents)
But why mention it at all?
He went off in a mildly threatening direction and I saw that as a chance to fire a cheap insult off at him. If Nigel was the kind of person you could have a reasonable discussion with I would do that, I know him far too well best I'm getting is tit for tat.
Quick question. First off, cracking discussions this morning between you all - what makes PB PB.
My question is would you want me as a member of the Labour Party.
Old white bloke but with many GEs left in me I hope, voted Cons all my life, small state, personal responsibility kind of guy, on the right or left of centre (it's all the same), appalled by Jezza's anti-semitism (or of his presiding over a party wherein anti-semites felt emboldened), appalled also by what the Cons have turned into post 2016 and hence no longer a member.
It may well be that you need me to vote for Lab. Would you welcome me with open arms? Or through gritted teeth? Or would you not want me at all?
I'm not in Labour, not voting Labour and actively want them to lose, so my message to you so you probably shouldn't vote for us...
More seriously if I was in Labour and they were offering something good now I'd be happy for you to vote for the party, I wouldn't want to offer something Tory like just to win your vote as we then may as well all stick with the Tories. I am happy* to vote for a party which has policies I don't support but that appeal to groups Labour needs say like more police which Labour offered.
So I wouldn't be against having an offering which might have some things that appeal to you but designing a manifesto like the ones you've voted for all your life as a long term Tory voter is not something Labour should do for multiple reasons.
Jezza is an old white man, I have relatives who are old white men. Pointing out they are the most racist group, is true and useful for the point I am making, it isn't because I hate them all or they are all bad, and bad health aside I will be old white and male.
Admittedly I wouldn't mind keeping my youth but I can't see me changing race or gender...
I think the frame of reference is challenging. "Tory lite" might take you well into the policy areas of other parties (cf the Cons' recent spending). Likewise, your "good" offering might not be the same for you and me. I suppose the question is how accommodating do you think Lab should be to me (and perhaps others in the middle) before it stopped being the party you support. Although I appreciate that you don't support it!
Did I point out that "old white men" are the most racist group? No. I said Jezza at the very least emboldened anti-semites in his party to think they could be openly anti-semitic.
TBH I view discrimination against minorities as racism whereas for you it is limited to opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine. We can go tit for tat on this particular topic if you like but nothing will be achieved, Young people and minorities are as stuck in their definition of racism as you are.
The comment about old white men was in reference to you calling yourself one and me clarifying my position on them.
As for Labour and its offering I am mildly sceptical there could be something that appears to both you and me, neither of us are actually the owners of a potential manifesto the question can be framed in terms of either of us compromising and sacrificing x or y, without either of us necessarily being unreasonable people the ground between us is probably too wide.
You are a long term Tory voter and I am someone who hasn't voted Labour previously because I thought they were too right wing. One of us would have to have a serious change of politics or the opponent be some kind of Adolf Hitler for us to be united IMO (said with no malice)
I don't think I have ever mentioned the word Palestine. And I think the ECHR was pretty clear on the Labour Party and anti-semitism:
The Labour party could have tackled antisemitism more effectively “if the leadership had chosen to do so”.
As the ECHR is a completely apolitical organisation I have been trying to find their report into the deeply troubling racism within the Conservatives...
Any clues mate?
You think Corbyn is a racist because he doesn't support the crutal occupation of Palestine, I think he isn't a racist because he doesn't support discrimination against minorities.
For Corbyn supporters being a group containing many of the victims of discrimination racism is actually about racism and not some sneaky way to criticise opposition to occupation.
I see we have decided to stick with tit for tat on this.
We were talking about anti-semitism in the Labour Party. You said Jezza wasn't racist, I just posted the ECHR's findings. Is it a "completely apolitical organisation"? No idea.
I must admit discussions on who is "BAME" are just as boring as discussions on who is "LGBTQwhatever".
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that those who use these sorts of categorisations in their daily work, and are charged with defining them, have given rather more thought to it than we have on a sunny Tuesday afternoon.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
First?
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
What does "white" mean in this context? Miliband might well share more DNA with (say) Layla Moran than with Keir Starmer. In ethnic terms, it's not necessarily useful to call him white.
Is it purely about how much light his skin reflects, in which case definitely he is? But then why bother?
Or is it about identifying who is and who isn't a minority, and thus needs additional protection, or where pointing out that they achieved a societal "first" becomes relevant? In that case, it gets to the crux about Labour's struggles: do Jews constitute a minority group, or do they not "count" for whatever reason?
Is he white? Yes seems a reasonable answer - since his family lineage is Polish - in which case he would not normally be thought of as BAME. Per the generally accepted definition it excludes White ethnic groups.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
Edit: also, and I think this is really important: the Milibands are about as Polish as they are British. Their family was in both places for a few hundred years, but, ethnically, the roots go back all over the place, and ultimately to somewhere in the Middle East. Calling them "Polish" as though they're the same as non-Jewish post-2004 EU expansion immigrants is just plain wrong.
You seem keen to make a point (and against me) but it's impossible to discern what it is. I simply answered with best efforts the question you posed. Miliband's family background is Polish and Jewish. I'm not "calling them" anything.
Mate I am a healthy young man who grew up in a poor neighbourhood, lets keep it anonymous for your sake. As for your feelings, I was always told if you aren't big enough to take it then don't give it out.
YHWH God, I hate people who bang on that grew up in a poor neighbourhood/working class background as i if somehow makes them better than middle class people.
It doesn't make me better, Corbyn is an example of someone better than me, makes me a bit tougher than him though, which was exactly my point (which even someone from a poor background could have grasped, so much for the advantages of having wealthy parents)
But why mention it at all?
He went off in a mildly threatening direction and I saw that as a chance to fire a cheap insult off at him. If Nigel was the kind of person you could have a reasonable discussion with I would do that, I know him far too well best I'm getting is tit for tat.
Quick question. First off, cracking discussions this morning between you all - what makes PB PB.
My question is would you want me as a member of the Labour Party.
Old white bloke but with many GEs left in me I hope, voted Cons all my life, small state, personal responsibility kind of guy, on the right or left of centre (it's all the same), appalled by Jezza's anti-semitism (or of his presiding over a party wherein anti-semites felt emboldened), appalled also by what the Cons have turned into post 2016 and hence no longer a member.
It may well be that you need me to vote for Lab. Would you welcome me with open arms? Or through gritted teeth? Or would you not want me at all?
I'm not in Labour, not voting Labour and actively want them to lose, so my message to you so you probably shouldn't vote for us...
More seriously if I was in Labour and they were offering something good now I'd be happy for you to vote for the party, I wouldn't want to offer something Tory like just to win your vote as we then may as well all stick with the Tories. I am happy* to vote for a party which has policies I don't support but that appeal to groups Labour needs say like more police which Labour offered.
So I wouldn't be against having an offering which might have some things that appeal to you but designing a manifesto like the ones you've voted for all your life as a long term Tory voter is not something Labour should do for multiple reasons.
Jezza is an old white man, I have relatives who are old white men. Pointing out they are the most racist group, is true and useful for the point I am making, it isn't because I hate them all or they are all bad, and bad health aside I will be old white and male.
Admittedly I wouldn't mind keeping my youth but I can't see me changing race or gender...
I think the frame of reference is challenging. "Tory lite" might take you well into the policy areas of other parties (cf the Cons' recent spending). Likewise, your "good" offering might not be the same for you and me. I suppose the question is how accommodating do you think Lab should be to me (and perhaps others in the middle) before it stopped being the party you support. Although I appreciate that you don't support it!
Did I point out that "old white men" are the most racist group? No. I said Jezza at the very least emboldened anti-semites in his party to think they could be openly anti-semitic.
TBH I view discrimination against minorities as racism whereas for you it is limited to opposition to the brutal occupation of Palestine. We can go tit for tat on this particular topic if you like but nothing will be achieved, Young people and minorities are as stuck in their definition of racism as you are.
The comment about old white men was in reference to you calling yourself one and me clarifying my position on them.
As for Labour and its offering I am mildly sceptical there could be something that appears to both you and me, neither of us are actually the owners of a potential manifesto the question can be framed in terms of either of us compromising and sacrificing x or y, without either of us necessarily being unreasonable people the ground between us is probably too wide.
You are a long term Tory voter and I am someone who hasn't voted Labour previously because I thought they were too right wing. One of us would have to have a serious change of politics or the opponent be some kind of Adolf Hitler for us to be united IMO (said with no malice)
I don't think I have ever mentioned the word Palestine. And I think the ECHR was pretty clear on the Labour Party and anti-semitism:
The Labour party could have tackled antisemitism more effectively “if the leadership had chosen to do so”.
As the ECHR is a completely apolitical organisation I have been trying to find their report into the deeply troubling racism within the Conservatives...
Any clues mate?
You think Corbyn is a racist because he doesn't support the crutal occupation of Palestine, I think he isn't a racist because he doesn't support discrimination against minorities.
For Corbyn supporters being a group containing many of the victims of discrimination racism is actually about racism and not some sneaky way to criticise opposition to occupation.
I see we have decided to stick with tit for tat on this.
We were talking about anti-semitism in the Labour Party. You said Jezza wasn't racist, I just posted the ECHR's findings. Is it a "completely apolitical organisation"? No idea.
Come on mate you are smart enough to figure it out.
The one party the most anti racist groups were inspired by is also the only one they've investigated and not the deeply racist Conservatives led by Boris Johnson and Theresa May?!
If I was trying to explain this to a foreigner they would be laughing at this point, what they have only investigated Labour? not the Tories? and only when they guy minorities actually liked came in? and only for a form of racism less prevalent in the party than others?
And were supposed to just believe this?
The government also recently published a report downplaying the idea of racism in Britain....
Basically we are supposed to believe that British racism starts and ends with the Labour leader most popular with minorities.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
This tends to illustrate the artificiality of both "White" and "BAME" as categories, as much as anything else. Sid James and William Shatner are as Jewish as Ed Miliband, for instance, and wouldn't be classed as BAME.
Exactly. The notion that not recognizing Ed as their 1st BAME leader is a "tell" of Labour's antisemitism is tosh.
And, yes, when you attempt to make these ethnic groupings, you are to some extent imposing false precision and certainty onto an area that inherently lacks those things.
In extremis, and going back far enough, aren't we all as one?
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Yes I would expect him to be classed as such, if the term is to have any meaning.
And there's a reason "white supremacists" have always targetted Jews and no, Jews have frequently not been considered to be "white" ethnically.
If you're going to go full on down the rabbit hole of saying "Jews Don't Count" then . . .
You need to take this up with those responsible for the BAME definition - if it still lives.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister
Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.
This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.
I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.
Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.
Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)
I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...
Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.
Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact
Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.
Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.
Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.
First?
What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?
Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.
I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.
Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.
Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by anothet?
So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very poibt you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Officially - i.e. according to the officially approved definitions used by the ONS and others - Jewish people aren’t BAME.
‘Liverpool University is removing the name of William Gladstone from one of its buildings because the Prime Minister, the great liberal exemplar, had a father who benefited from slavery. The building will be renamed for a Communist, Dorothy Kuya.’
A communist? Really? No issues there at all. No-one died because of Lenin or Stalin, or Mao did they? Idiots. And worse - malign idiots, without the intelligence to realise how stupid they are.
They weren't given "CPGB membership" on the one para biographies on the shortlist.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic. Jews are a minority ethnic group as protected by the 2010 Equalities Act. What is this mad idea that "white" is a unified group? Jews? Slavs? Romany? May have white skin but aren't treated as "white".
You might want a different definition of BAME - and there might be a good argument for it - but such is not the definition.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
The correct English phrase is "ethnic minority", NOT "minority ethnique".
But like any Englishman there's a bit of Welsh in the lineage somewhere. Indeed, in the dim and distant past some of my ancestors were MPs for Anglesey, in the days when such things were passed on.
There's nee Welsh in my lineage mate.
I bet there is.
My understanding of the latest understanding of these things is that the Anglo-Saxon impact on the English population was relatively modest (20% or so at most) - so if you go far enough back you'll almost certainly find some. Plus, if you go back more than a few hundred years, if you're of largely British stock you'll be descended from literally everyone of that generation who has descendants.
Admittedly if you're from the northeast you'll probably be more Germanic than me from the North West. But still - there's Welsh there whether you like it or not!
Those names are going away. I've got 3 kids and I can't think of any of their friends or classmates with those names. In 40 years time it will all be Noah, Amelia/Emelia, Jack, Olivia, Oliver etc.
Call your kid Beelzebub or Jezebel, and give him/her/it a REAL start in life in the 21st century!
Jezebel would make a few teachers stumble over the register assuming they still call it surname, forename if your surname happened to be Painted
Ive come across a disturbing number of young white girls called Ebony...
Are they expected to meet young black boys called Ivory ...?
They don't need to meet. They can just make a video together where their foot appears to go through the leg of the other.
Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)
If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.
Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.
I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?
The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.
Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.
Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.
Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.
If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.
If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.
Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.
The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.
Would you expect Ed to be classed as BAME?
Here's the definition AIUI -
"The acronym BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic and is defined as all ethnic groups except White ethnic groups. It does not relate to country origin or affiliation."
Ed is white, no?
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic. Jews are a minority ethnic group as protected by the 2010 Equalities Act. What is this mad idea that "white" is a unified group? Jews? Slavs? Romany? May have white skin but aren't treated as "white".
You might want a different definition of BAME - and there might be a good argument for it - but such is not the definition.
And we know why the acronym BAME is deprecated and currently on the way out, because the categories are confused.
What happens to black Jews, or in US parlance African-American Jews, of which there are quite significant numbers?
Are they 'white' because of their Jewishness, or 'black' because of their skin colour?
But like any Englishman there's a bit of Welsh in the lineage somewhere. Indeed, in the dim and distant past some of my ancestors were MPs for Anglesey, in the days when such things were passed on.
There's nee Welsh in my lineage mate.
I bet there is.
My understanding of the latest understanding of these things is that the Anglo-Saxon impact on the English population was relatively modest (20% or so at most) - so if you go far enough back you'll almost certainly find some. Plus, if you go back more than a few hundred years, if you're of largely British stock you'll be descended from literally everyone of that generation who has descendants.
Admittedly if you're from the northeast you'll probably be more Germanic than me from the North West. But still - there's Welsh there whether you like it or not!
There does appear to be distinct lowland vs upland divide in the ancient population of Britain which is sometimes expressed popularly as "English/Germanic" vs "Celtic" but this appears to pre-date the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that there was already an Anglo-Saxon population in parts of Britain before the Romans, which is still pretty fringe but has a surprising number of adherents.
Alex Salmond is at the centre of a row about transgender rights over a remark he is reported to have made to the respected broadcaster Jim Spence.
Writing in his latest column for The Courier, Mr Spence claimed the former first minister complained to him the SNP had been “captured by around a hundred loony tune transgender warriors”.
Alex Salmond is at the centre of a row about transgender rights over a remark he is reported to have made to the respected broadcaster Jim Spence.
Writing in his latest column for The Courier, Mr Spence claimed the former first minister complained to him the SNP had been “captured by around a hundred loony tune transgender warriors”.
Comments
Sleeting.
Labour's problem is Tory popularity. This is mysterious to its members and myself. But it is there.
Given the option to "self-describe", I'm very tempted by both "None Of Your Business" and "I Don't Know (Or Care)".
Did I point out that "old white men" are the most racist group? No. I said Jezza at the very least emboldened anti-semites in his party to think they could be openly anti-semitic.
And there's a reason "white supremacists" have always targetted Jews and no, Jews have frequently not been considered to be "white" ethnically.
If you're going to go full on down the rabbit hole of saying "Jews Don't Count" then . . .
Its likely that, between 1958 and 1962 alone, 40 million Chinese people perished of famine. Nobody really tried to kill them or planned to. It was just that the regime could not accept or comprehend just how big a catastrophe their plans had become.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19277844.salmond-no-exact-number-constitute-independence-supermajority/
As I wrote last month... https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1389583310653992970/photo/1
Corbyn's election as leader motivated a lot of new members to join, many of whom shared his views on various topics, including anti-racism. So far, so good. Unfortunately, some of the views in question related to things better described as "racism" than "anti-racism".
The nuance you seem to be missing is that it's perfectly possible for people to be very energised by fighting discrimination against some groups, whilst still holding discriminatory attitudes towards others. Real anti-racists understand that, if someone is targeting one group today, they can easily switch focus to a different group tomorrow (First they came for the, etc etc).
Simply this. There has been only one new political idea to respond to the GFC.
That was Brexit.
The more the Tories have associated themselves with it, the more popular they have become. They are now full fat. Nowhere left to go. If Brexit doesn't solve the ills there will be a need for summat else.
Tony Blair was 20 odd years ago I am obviously talking about the current generation not people who were young in the past and are now almost 50.
Yes an 18 year old named James was voting for UKIP in 20XX and is obviously completely separate from anything to do with Corbyn and has very different political aspirations and who he see's as a leader.
I am talking about where the mass of people voted and that many voted for the first time and the enthusiasm, the reason he had such passionate support and passionate opposition in the media is he was the first politician to talk for many under 40's, the levels of engagement from younger people with Labour either side of Corbyn is telling.
Is it likely to change to "BAME plus Jews"? Not 100% convinced.
That's the real danger.
Given it has been 18 months before anyone even thought of thinking about some policies to add to the sloganeering, suggests they aren't exactly bursting with new ideas.
She’s sexy
On great thing about a kid named Beelzebub, is that you've got a great nickname built right in - Bub. Similar for Jezebel - Bel(lle).
Of course you could get (or rather stay) creative, and go with Beel, and Jez - or maybe . . . wait for it . . . Jezza?
I'm under 40. I voted for Blair in 2001 as an 18 year old. I can assure you that I was not alone in being a young 18 year old then who did, unless you want to relabel Millenials now as being old already.
Sure an 18 year old in 2017 or 2019 won't have had a chance to vote for anyone else before, but that's just timing. There will be 18 year olds voting for the first time in 2024, heck there will be 18 year olds voting for the first time this week.
There was nothing unique about Corbyn, besides timing.
Your other question is thus answered. The BAME categorization is not about identifying who might be prone to racial discrimination. It's about identifying which non White people might be prone to racial discrimination.
From this can one conclude that Jews, Travelers, Irish, Eastern Europeans etc "don't count"?
No, I don't think so. I think that's a stretch that only those with an agenda would make.
None of it good
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/08/bame-britain-ethnic-minorities-acronym
Edit: also, and I think this is really important: the Milibands are about as Polish as they are British. Their family was in both places for a few hundred years, but, ethnically, the roots go back all over the place, and ultimately to somewhere in the Middle East. Calling them "Polish" as though they're the same as non-Jewish post-2004 EU expansion immigrants is just plain wrong.
The comment about old white men was in reference to you calling yourself one and me clarifying my position on them.
As for Labour and its offering I am mildly sceptical there could be something that appears to both you and me, neither of us are actually the owners of a potential manifesto the question can be framed in terms of either of us compromising and sacrificing x or y, without either of us necessarily being unreasonable people the ground between us is probably too wide.
You are a long term Tory voter and I am someone who hasn't voted Labour previously because I thought they were too right wing. One of us would have to have a serious change of politics or the opponent be some kind of Adolf Hitler for us to be united IMO (said with no malice)
Are you unaware of the Black Madonna, Our Lady of Częstochowa?
Actually turns out there are PLENTY of Black Madonas venerated across Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna
Arabs and jews are both BAME or are both not BAME as they are both semitic people. Can't therefore have one BAME and one not
That is IF he did NOT put his pennies on Sir Alec Douglas Hume for Leader of the Tory Party in 1963, then WHO did he bet on?
My guess is Sir Gerald Nabarro.
SMITHSON FESS UP! PB WANTS TO KNOW!!
Truth be told I sort of assumed Jewish people already counted as BAME
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
The Labour party could have tackled antisemitism more effectively “if the leadership had chosen to do so”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/29/key-findings-of-the-ehrc-inquiry-into-labour-antisemitism
And still not charging.
Not unless you start taxing and disinvesting from already affluent areas in the SE.
Herein lies the Tory dilemma of the future.
Racist views in Labour dropped thanks to the membership surge Corbyn inspired, with old tired racists leaving and young people and minorities who oppose racism take their place.
If Corbyn was the racist you and the Daily Mail make him out to be, in between warning us of the dangers of Muslim and immigrants (it is almost as if it is actually his opponents that a racist) and other groups the party would have started to look more like a Nigel Farage or a Boris Johnson led party...
Except the exact happened, the party went in a much more diverse less racist direction inspired by Corbyn.
Has it ever occurred to you that the Daily Mail, the Sun and other deeply racist right wing news organisations castigated Labour for being racist when they would have supported the party were it actually racist?
Why did all these racist groups and people hate Labour and all these anti racist groups and people love Labour under Corbyn, it literally doesn't make sense!
I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.
Are Jews minority ethnic?
NEW THREAD
I dont get it, since you dont need to be some rigid uber capitalist instead, there are middle grounds.
Any clues mate?
You think Corbyn is a racist because he doesn't support the crutal occupation of Palestine, I think he isn't a racist because he doesn't support discrimination against minorities.
For Corbyn supporters being a group containing many of the victims of discrimination racism is actually about racism and not some sneaky way to criticise opposition to occupation.
I see we have decided to stick with tit for tat on this.
Starmer being a racist?
Calling the Labour leader racist is something this forum has loved to do. Now we actually do have a racist Labour leader I will damn well mention it!
The flip side is of course remain electorally very popular too with loads of people, but whilst a group can be be both popular and hated, it's worth people remembering the former part is true as well as the latter.
As bumper as this weeks elections are I'm not sure it really is super Thursday either.
I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)
Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?
Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?
In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.
The one party the most anti racist groups were inspired by is also the only one they've investigated and not the deeply racist Conservatives led by Boris Johnson and Theresa May?!
If I was trying to explain this to a foreigner they would be laughing at this point, what they have only investigated Labour? not the Tories? and only when they guy minorities actually liked came in? and only for a form of racism less prevalent in the party than others?
And were supposed to just believe this?
The government also recently published a report downplaying the idea of racism in Britain....
Basically we are supposed to believe that British racism starts and ends with the Labour leader most popular with minorities.
Are you stupid enough to believe this?
I'm not.
And, yes, when you attempt to make these ethnic groupings, you are to some extent imposing false precision and certainty onto an area that inherently lacks those things.
In extremis, and going back far enough, aren't we all as one?
Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.
Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by anothet?
So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very poibt you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.
So f*ck you.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2021/04/12/the-shortlist-is-out-have-your-say-next-week/
My understanding of the latest understanding of these things is that the Anglo-Saxon impact on the English population was relatively modest (20% or so at most) - so if you go far enough back you'll almost certainly find some. Plus, if you go back more than a few hundred years, if you're of largely British stock you'll be descended from literally everyone of that generation who has descendants.
Admittedly if you're from the northeast you'll probably be more Germanic than me from the North West. But still - there's Welsh there whether you like it or not!
What happens to black Jews, or in US parlance African-American Jews, of which there are quite significant numbers?
Are they 'white' because of their Jewishness, or 'black' because of their skin colour?
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that there was already an Anglo-Saxon population in parts of Britain before the Romans, which is still pretty fringe but has a surprising number of adherents.
Writing in his latest column for The Courier, Mr Spence claimed the former first minister complained to him the SNP had been “captured by around a hundred loony tune transgender warriors”.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2191135/exclusive-alex-salmond-embroiled-in-transgender-remark-row/?utm_source=twitter