I don’t even understand the argument. Is this an attempt to smear Starmer as an anti-Semite because he is trying to tackle anti-Semitism in Labour? Or is it because Starmer is white, male and centrist so he ‘must’ be racist?
Quite odd. Perhaps the first political opinion on PB that I have failed to comprehend. I’m getting old
I believe the Jezziah is talking about Keir Starmer adopting the symbols and language of the far right, like this:
He wants to say "New Labour" but can't so it is "New Leadership" instead. Perhaps he could try "New New Labour"?
"New Leadership" also has the issue that it implies only the leader has changed. The rest of them are all the same (which is broadly true).
Still think they should have gone with "a New Hope"....
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
You are a deluded nutter. If it wasn't for the fact that you are supporting a genuine anti-Semite cnut I would think you quite worth laughing at for your incomprehensible stupidity, but the fact that you are supporting, and are a clear apologist for said lying anti-semite I rather wish you would go back to the sewer from which you came. Anti-Semites and their apologists such as yourself are nothing short of scum.
You can get as upset as you want about it but the racist base of Starmer is much older than Corbyns base so Labour won't be a racist party for long, it will belong to the current young and minorities who are racists and you view as sewer dwellers.
Best part is I'm young and healthy enough to be around to probably see it happen, if it is any nconsolation all you angry old guys who hate Corbyn/Black people/ Muslims will be mostly gone then so you won't have to worry about it, the country can stay racist until your generation loses its voting power.
MODERATOR: PLEASE CENSURE THIS POSTER
Why? It's very revealing.
People often laugh at me for pointing out the madness of Woke: I'm talking about people like @TheJezziah
I thought the right wanted to make wokeness about nonsense not to do with racism?
I don't care too much about 'culture war' type stuff tbh, I don't care about waving flags as long as they are swazstika's. I don't hate transgender people and would call myself generally supportive but trans rights have never really been forefront of my mind.
I am strongly against racism though, if racism is part of the culture war then I am very much invested.
You might want to change that wording about flags ... I had to read it about 3 or 4 times ...
Yeah noticed that a bit late!
TO CLARIFY
I don't care about waving flags as long as they are NOT swazstika's
What if its hindu's waving it?
I'd forgotten about that, I don't know if they actually put that symbol on a flag?
I mean I assume it looks different.... lets specify an actual nazi flag with the colour scheme and everything the same...
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?
Look North was saying a couple of days ago it was close.
I think LAB should get it
If Labour are 3rd in Scotland, down in Wales, lose Hartlepool, WMids, Teeside, and WYorks then it will be an awful night for Starmer. If you'd have told someone in 2014 that those last 4 were probable results then they'd have looked at you veyr funny indeed.
Dont even need to go as far back as 2014.
2017 was the highpoint.
Since then Labour appear to be in a tail spin and replacing a rubbish pilot with an equally rubbish one has accelerated the plane crash
2017 was the outlier election in the same was we have outlier polls. Strip the need for people to vote seriously tactically to try and secure / stop Brexit and there would just have been downward sliding.
Remember that in 2017 - the year of the Jeremy's big victory, 20% more people voted Tory than in 2015. OK so thats not much more than half of the 38% increase for Labour, but look what happened afterwards. Total vote tallies are irrelevant to the actual FPTP result, but indicative for trends.
LABOUR VOTE 2010 8.610m 2015 9.347m 2017 12.878m 2019 10.269m
The Tory vote has risen every year since 2001. The Labour vote - with the brief exception of the two party polarisation that boosted both parties in 2017 - has been crawling upwards. Labour's problem is not Starmer is not Corbyn is not Milliband. Labour's problem is Labour.
Genuinely dont see 2017 as the outlier I hope 2019 (as entirely about getting BREXIT over the line for some) was the outlier
2010 Gordon Brown Lab lose by 2.09m 2015 EICIPM Lab lose by 1.97m 2017 Jezza Lab lose by 0.76m 2019 Get Brexit done Jezza Lab lose by 3.69m
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 blame George Orwell in part. People read novels like 1984 and Animal Farm and took them as instruction manuals rather than a warning. A better illustration of the concept of doublethink would be hard to conceive of.
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?
Labour are reeling from their worst defeat since 1935. That was Corbyn's fault. His policies and attitudes were anathema to most thinking people.
Starmer is trying to recover that position. The disgusting way that Jews in the party were treated is a small part of that. There is more to do but the people of this country are tolerant and will not vote for someone like Corbyn or anyone who holds his disgusting views, even if the alternative is a total incompetent like Theresa May.
His policies and thinking was anathema to the most racist sections of society and most appealing to the least racist sections of society because he wasn't a racist, I notice you just ignore and sidestep this logic because you can't answer it.
Also Labour is Corbynista in the long term, the most racist groups who oppose him are the ones who will die soonest and leave electoral power to those who are least racist.
A anti racist Labour in a Corbyn way is the future however much you rant about the children being wrong
One of the many flaws with this line of thought is that people have been applying it to support for the Tories arguing that because their supporters were traditionally older they were going to die first. Detailed examination by learned professors found that as these oldies die off they are replaced by more oldies as we all get older. It may even happen to you one day...
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.
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.
Indeed, though in case it wasn't clear I was responding to this part: 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.
People who criticised Abbott alone and exclusively are probably racist. People who criticise Abbott, RLB and the others are not and its wrong to mischaracterise the criticism of her as "racist".
But you're right entirely, Ed was "BAME". As of course was Disraeli and Howard.
The UK had its first "BAME" Prime Minister in the nineteenth century.
Morning! Thought I would give this a go after about a decade of lurking. Incidentally, it started when a teacher of mine suggested that checking the betting markets is a better predicter of election results than the polls. My feeling is the assertion has taken some hammering since then and I suspect the market has moved against it (no doubt very profitably).
Off Topic, I was really interested in a comment from a previous thread yesterday that linked to a thread from Ciaran Martin on the constitutionality of the IndyRef and what all this means for the future of the Union. Essentially, there's nothing left to devolve and Federalism means either; very unequal federal system, or the clawing of powers back from Holyrood and the dissolution of England as a political entity. Martin's point about federalism and devolution not being one and the same was very shrewd. My suggestion? Enter the third chamber!
Simply add a House of Nations to Parliament, 100 seats, elected by PR and equally distributed among the Nations. Any legislation requires majorities of 2/4 delegations to pass. So, 13 Seats in England, 13 seats in Wales would see a bill go through (having passed the representatives in the Commons in a majority, indicating broad support). This would limit nationalist parties from blocking, while giving equal representation to the Nations.
Now, I don't know if constitutional fanfiction is something we do here but I'm pretty proud of the idea!
Somebody proposed something fairly similar a few weeks ago. But it has the obvious objection that 5 million Welsh and Northern Irish could defeat something that 60 million English and Scots really want.
Also, it's not true that there's nothing left to devolve. This wikipedia page lists several dozen powers that could be devolved:
For instance, time zones are reserved. But why shouldn't Scotland choose a different time zone from England if it wants? Or weights and measures. If England wants to go Imperial why is it any of Wales's business? Judicial salaries - the same. etc. etc.
I will dig out the paper that inspired these musings (https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/resist-reform-or-re-run-short-and-long-term-reflections-scotland-and) but a big part of it was that the majoritarian arrangement of our constitution is killing the Union, especially at a time of political disharmony between England and Scotland. Scotland can't take part in the political life of the Union because the dominance of the SNP means that Scottish ministers in Scottish seats is a vanishingly small possibility right now, while an English-focussed Conservative Party has no reason to govern in the interests of the UK (the current coalition sustaining it is a broadly English one). The scenario outlined reduces the threshold for Legislation to pass. Delegations would be counted together, and 2/4 would be required to pass. To expand on the example above, slightly. 13 Seats for England vote for, with 13 Seats in Wales voting for. Even if the entire delegation of Scotland and Northern Ireland (50 seats in total), plus the 12 votes against from the English and Welsh seats voted against it for an overall split of 26 for vs 74 against, it would still pass (26 being the minimum legislation could be passed on). Admittedly, you could have the situation where England's delegation votes for a thing, with 25 votes (a majority in the Union), but the other nations vote against and so the legislation is not passed (For the Brexit Deal, some quick calculations would see it get 13 English votes, but fall short of majorities in the other three delegations. Johnson would have needed the DUP onside). I see the point about blocking, although the Commons would still be the supreme chamber constitutionally and so something like the arrangement between the Commons and the Lords might emerge. Of course, the mere presence of such a chamber would change voting behaviour and, more importantly, the behaviour of the parties. A party could no longer depend on a united England for legislative success and would have to focus in other areas of the country, which in my opinion, in a Union of Partners, is right. Others, of course, can take a different view, but I fail to see how the Union can long survive under those circumstances.
As for more devolution, I suppose I take your point, but Scotland are not anymore interested in weights and measures, or the OS or even Antarctica than anyone else. It'll be immigration policy, nuclear policy, the constitution, that catch people's eye and these are things that are much more difficult to devolve. But suppose we end up with a long term settlement of Devomax for Scotland. What then for Wales, if they demand the same, and NI? What if a political will for devolution in English regions emerges? Devomax for all? What then is the point of a Westminster Government and the Union?
I don’t even understand the argument. Is this an attempt to smear Starmer as an anti-Semite because he is trying to tackle anti-Semitism in Labour? Or is it because Starmer is white, male and centrist so he ‘must’ be racist?
Quite odd. Perhaps the first political opinion on PB that I have failed to comprehend. I’m getting old
I believe the Jezziah is talking about Keir Starmer adopting the symbols and language of the far right, like this:
He wants to say "New Labour" but can't so it is "New Leadership" instead. Perhaps he could try "New New Labour"?
"New Leadership" also has the issue that it implies only the leader has changed. The rest of them are all the same (which is broadly true).
Still think they should have gone with "a New Hope"....
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?
Look North was saying a couple of days ago it was close.
I think LAB should get it
If Labour are 3rd in Scotland, down in Wales, lose Hartlepool, WMids, Teeside, and WYorks then it will be an awful night for Starmer. If you'd have told someone in 2014 that those last 4 were probable results then they'd have looked at you veyr funny indeed.
Dont even need to go as far back as 2014.
2017 was the highpoint.
Since then Labour appear to be in a tail spin and replacing a rubbish pilot with an equally rubbish one has accelerated the plane crash
2017 was the outlier election in the same was we have outlier polls. Strip the need for people to vote seriously tactically to try and secure / stop Brexit and there would just have been downward sliding.
Remember that in 2017 - the year of the Jeremy's big victory, 20% more people voted Tory than in 2015. OK so thats not much more than half of the 38% increase for Labour, but look what happened afterwards. Total vote tallies are irrelevant to the actual FPTP result, but indicative for trends.
LABOUR VOTE 2010 8.610m 2015 9.347m 2017 12.878m 2019 10.269m
The Tory vote has risen every year since 2001. The Labour vote - with the brief exception of the two party polarisation that boosted both parties in 2017 - has been crawling upwards. Labour's problem is not Starmer is not Corbyn is not Milliband. Labour's problem is Labour.
The Tory record since 2010 is truly astonishing. I very much doubt that has ever occurred before. To increase both the total vote and share of the vote 3x in a row in office. Amazing.
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
You are a deluded nutter. If it wasn't for the fact that you are supporting a genuine anti-Semite cnut I would think you quite worth laughing at for your incomprehensible stupidity, but the fact that you are supporting, and are a clear apologist for said lying anti-semite I rather wish you would go back to the sewer from which you came. Anti-Semites and their apologists such as yourself are nothing short of scum.
You can get as upset as you want about it but the racist base of Starmer is much older than Corbyns base so Labour won't be a racist party for long, it will belong to the current young and minorities who are racists and you view as sewer dwellers.
Best part is I'm young and healthy enough to be around to probably see it happen, if it is any nconsolation all you angry old guys who hate Corbyn/Black people/ Muslims will be mostly gone then so you won't have to worry about it, the country can stay racist until your generation loses its voting power.
MODERATOR: PLEASE CENSURE THIS POSTER
Why? It's very revealing.
People often laugh at me for pointing out the madness of Woke: I'm talking about people like @TheJezziah
No, we laugh at you for essentially rendering the term meaningless.
No, I've explained consistently and clearly what it means.
It's just your puny brain has trouble processing it.
Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, appointed Martin Forde QC last May to investigate the leak of an unredacted report into the party’s complaints process. The report included details of alleged conversations between party officials about black MPs that were condemned as racist and led to a backlash among black Labour supporters.
Detractors say it is unclear why Forde has waited until now, 10 months after the information commissioner was informed of the data breach and seven months after the report was initially due to be delivered, to warn of the risk of prejudicing the external investigation.
“The possibility of a racist culture and a hostile environment for black members within the party needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and the Forde inquiry is an important tool for doing just that,” the MPs said.
The signatories to the statement were Marsha de Cordova, the shadow women and equalities secretary, Chi Onwurah, the shadow science minister, and the MPs Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Florence Eshalomi, Kim Johnson, Clive Lewis, Kate Osamor and Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
The racists are on the right of the party and going after racism would get in the way of pursuing the politics of appealing to wealthy old white men.
Which is why people on this forum and in the press don't care.
As many people stated over and over again racism wasn't anything to do with it, people who previously pretending to be disgusted by racism (mainly rich old white men) in the light of actual racism being covered up by Starmer are perfectly happy.
Just to clarify nothing wrong with being rich, old, white or male, I am some of these I will hopefully be all but at least one of them some day, just these are the groups where racism is currently most accepted.
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?
Look North was saying a couple of days ago it was close.
I think LAB should get it
If Labour are 3rd in Scotland, down in Wales, lose Hartlepool, WMids, Teeside, and WYorks then it will be an awful night for Starmer. If you'd have told someone in 2014 that those last 4 were probable results then they'd have looked at you veyr funny indeed.
Dont even need to go as far back as 2014.
2017 was the highpoint.
Since then Labour appear to be in a tail spin and replacing a rubbish pilot with an equally rubbish one has accelerated the plane crash
2017 was the outlier election in the same was we have outlier polls. Strip the need for people to vote seriously tactically to try and secure / stop Brexit and there would just have been downward sliding.
Remember that in 2017 - the year of the Jeremy's big victory, 20% more people voted Tory than in 2015. OK so thats not much more than half of the 38% increase for Labour, but look what happened afterwards. Total vote tallies are irrelevant to the actual FPTP result, but indicative for trends.
LABOUR VOTE 2010 8.610m 2015 9.347m 2017 12.878m 2019 10.269m
The Tory vote has risen every year since 2001. The Labour vote - with the brief exception of the two party polarisation that boosted both parties in 2017 - has been crawling upwards. Labour's problem is not Starmer is not Corbyn is not Milliband. Labour's problem is Labour.
The Tory record since 2010 is truly astonishing. I very much doubt that has ever occurred before. To increase both the total vote and share of the vote 3x in a row in office. Amazing.
I'm not sure if increasing both the total vote and share of the vote while in office had ever occurred before 2015, let alone doing both three times in a row?
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?
Look North was saying a couple of days ago it was close.
I think LAB should get it
If Labour are 3rd in Scotland, down in Wales, lose Hartlepool, WMids, Teeside, and WYorks then it will be an awful night for Starmer. If you'd have told someone in 2014 that those last 4 were probable results then they'd have looked at you veyr funny indeed.
Dont even need to go as far back as 2014.
2017 was the highpoint.
Since then Labour appear to be in a tail spin and replacing a rubbish pilot with an equally rubbish one has accelerated the plane crash
2017 was the outlier election in the same was we have outlier polls. Strip the need for people to vote seriously tactically to try and secure / stop Brexit and there would just have been downward sliding.
Remember that in 2017 - the year of the Jeremy's big victory, 20% more people voted Tory than in 2015. OK so thats not much more than half of the 38% increase for Labour, but look what happened afterwards. Total vote tallies are irrelevant to the actual FPTP result, but indicative for trends.
LABOUR VOTE 2010 8.610m 2015 9.347m 2017 12.878m 2019 10.269m
The Tory vote has risen every year since 2001. The Labour vote - with the brief exception of the two party polarisation that boosted both parties in 2017 - has been crawling upwards. Labour's problem is not Starmer is not Corbyn is not Milliband. Labour's problem is Labour.
Genuinely dont see 2017 as the outlier I hope 2019 (as entirely about getting BREXIT over the line for some) was the outlier
2010 Gordon Brown Lab lose by 2.09m 2015 EICIPM Lab lose by 1.97m 2017 Jezza Lab lose by 0.76m 2019 Get Brexit done Jezza Lab lose by 3.69m
I'm looking at the trend. In 2017 people ditched other parties and coalesced around the big two. On one side the Brexiteers ditched UKIP for the Tories, who fell from 3.881m to 0.594m. On the other side the remainers ditched the LibDems and the Greens for Labour.
The difference in performance is that in 2019 the Tories increased their vote again and kept the UKIP/Brexit switchers on board. Labour on the other hand shed their coalition and fell back a significant way towards where they started in 2015.
This isn't all bad news for Labour. Keeping to the 2010 > 2015 and then 2015 > 2019 trend they should get to around 11.3m at the next election which was good enough for a Tory majority in 2015. The problem - one that few Corbynites want to recognise or understand - is that it takes two to tango. To win on 11.3m you need the other party to crash. It doesn't matter who leads Labour, you need the Tories to drop 4m votes to have a prayer.
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
You are a deluded nutter. If it wasn't for the fact that you are supporting a genuine anti-Semite cnut I would think you quite worth laughing at for your incomprehensible stupidity, but the fact that you are supporting, and are a clear apologist for said lying anti-semite I rather wish you would go back to the sewer from which you came. Anti-Semites and their apologists such as yourself are nothing short of scum.
You can get as upset as you want about it but the racist base of Starmer is much older than Corbyns base so Labour won't be a racist party for long, it will belong to the current young and minorities who are racists and you view as sewer dwellers.
Best part is I'm young and healthy enough to be around to probably see it happen, if it is any nconsolation all you angry old guys who hate Corbyn/Black people/ Muslims will be mostly gone then so you won't have to worry about it, the country can stay racist until your generation loses its voting power.
MODERATOR: PLEASE CENSURE THIS POSTER
Why? It's very revealing.
People often laugh at me for pointing out the madness of Woke: I'm talking about people like @TheJezziah
No, we laugh at you for essentially rendering the term meaningless.
No, I've explained consistently and clearly what it means.
It's just your puny brain has trouble processing it.
I have no trouble at all with the amusing concept of you thinking yourself the authoritative source for self-serving word definitions.
Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, appointed Martin Forde QC last May to investigate the leak of an unredacted report into the party’s complaints process. The report included details of alleged conversations between party officials about black MPs that were condemned as racist and led to a backlash among black Labour supporters.
Detractors say it is unclear why Forde has waited until now, 10 months after the information commissioner was informed of the data breach and seven months after the report was initially due to be delivered, to warn of the risk of prejudicing the external investigation.
“The possibility of a racist culture and a hostile environment for black members within the party needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and the Forde inquiry is an important tool for doing just that,” the MPs said.
The signatories to the statement were Marsha de Cordova, the shadow women and equalities secretary, Chi Onwurah, the shadow science minister, and the MPs Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Florence Eshalomi, Kim Johnson, Clive Lewis, Kate Osamor and Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
The racists are on the right of the party and going after racism would get in the way of pursuing the politics of appealing to wealthy old white men.
Which is why people on this forum and in the press don't care.
As many people stated over and over again racism wasn't anything to do with it, people who previously pretending to be disgusted by racism (mainly rich old white men) in the light of actual racism being covered up by Starmer are perfectly happy.
Just to clarify nothing wrong with being rich, old, white or male, I am some of these I will hopefully be all but at least one of them some day, just these are the groups where racism is currently most accepted.
And these same people on the receiving end of this alleged cover-up are happy to do their own cover-up of their own racism towards Jews.
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 blame George Orwell in part. People read novels like 1984 and Animal Farm and took them as instruction manuals rather than a warning. A better illustration of the concept of doublethink would be hard to conceive of.
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?
Labour are reeling from their worst defeat since 1935. That was Corbyn's fault. His policies and attitudes were anathema to most thinking people.
Starmer is trying to recover that position. The disgusting way that Jews in the party were treated is a small part of that. There is more to do but the people of this country are tolerant and will not vote for someone like Corbyn or anyone who holds his disgusting views, even if the alternative is a total incompetent like Theresa May.
His policies and thinking was anathema to the most racist sections of society and most appealing to the least racist sections of society because he wasn't a racist, I notice you just ignore and sidestep this logic because you can't answer it.
Also Labour is Corbynista in the long term, the most racist groups who oppose him are the ones who will die soonest and leave electoral power to those who are least racist.
A anti racist Labour in a Corbyn way is the future however much you rant about the children being wrong
One of the many flaws with this line of thought is that people have been applying it to support for the Tories arguing that because their supporters were traditionally older they were going to die first. Detailed examination by learned professors found that as these oldies die off they are replaced by more oldies as we all get older. It may even happen to you one day...
Yes but as with homophobia the prejudices die with the generations, the younger Corbynista generation is going to become old people but retain their anti racist stances not adopt the racist stances of the older starmer supporting generations.
The Tories didn't stand still claiming gays were bad, they moved with the generational views, Labour party will have to do the same, from racist starmer views held currently to a more anti racist Corbynista views. Like the Labour party had to more towards Corbyn on gay rights and away from homophobia.
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
You are a deluded nutter. If it wasn't for the fact that you are supporting a genuine anti-Semite cnut I would think you quite worth laughing at for your incomprehensible stupidity, but the fact that you are supporting, and are a clear apologist for said lying anti-semite I rather wish you would go back to the sewer from which you came. Anti-Semites and their apologists such as yourself are nothing short of scum.
You can get as upset as you want about it but the racist base of Starmer is much older than Corbyns base so Labour won't be a racist party for long, it will belong to the current young and minorities who are racists and you view as sewer dwellers.
Best part is I'm young and healthy enough to be around to probably see it happen, if it is any nconsolation all you angry old guys who hate Corbyn/Black people/ Muslims will be mostly gone then so you won't have to worry about it, the country can stay racist until your generation loses its voting power.
MODERATOR: PLEASE CENSURE THIS POSTER
Why? It's very revealing.
People often laugh at me for pointing out the madness of Woke: I'm talking about people like @TheJezziah
No, we laugh at you for essentially rendering the term meaningless.
No, I've explained consistently and clearly what it means.
It's just your puny brain has trouble processing it.
I have no trouble at all with the amusing concept of you thinking yourself the authoritative source for self-serving word definitions.
Since you can't ever engage with the argument, except with ad hominem, I'd say that demonstrates the limits of your intellect rather neatly.
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.
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?
Look North was saying a couple of days ago it was close.
I think LAB should get it
If Labour are 3rd in Scotland, down in Wales, lose Hartlepool, WMids, Teeside, and WYorks then it will be an awful night for Starmer. If you'd have told someone in 2014 that those last 4 were probable results then they'd have looked at you veyr funny indeed.
Dont even need to go as far back as 2014.
2017 was the highpoint.
Since then Labour appear to be in a tail spin and replacing a rubbish pilot with an equally rubbish one has accelerated the plane crash
2017 was the outlier election in the same was we have outlier polls. Strip the need for people to vote seriously tactically to try and secure / stop Brexit and there would just have been downward sliding.
Remember that in 2017 - the year of the Jeremy's big victory, 20% more people voted Tory than in 2015. OK so thats not much more than half of the 38% increase for Labour, but look what happened afterwards. Total vote tallies are irrelevant to the actual FPTP result, but indicative for trends.
LABOUR VOTE 2010 8.610m 2015 9.347m 2017 12.878m 2019 10.269m
The Tory vote has risen every year since 2001. The Labour vote - with the brief exception of the two party polarisation that boosted both parties in 2017 - has been crawling upwards. Labour's problem is not Starmer is not Corbyn is not Milliband. Labour's problem is Labour.
The Tory record since 2010 is truly astonishing. I very much doubt that has ever occurred before. To increase both the total vote and share of the vote 3x in a row in office. Amazing.
I'm not sure if increasing both the total vote and share of the vote while in office had ever occurred before 2015, let alone doing both three times in a row?
I had to check 1987 where the swing against Thatcher was all of 0.2% but no other example comes to mind as a possibility.
It does suggest that those who were so certain that the Tory party was going to tear itself apart and self destruct over Europe were not entirely right.
Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, appointed Martin Forde QC last May to investigate the leak of an unredacted report into the party’s complaints process. The report included details of alleged conversations between party officials about black MPs that were condemned as racist and led to a backlash among black Labour supporters.
Detractors say it is unclear why Forde has waited until now, 10 months after the information commissioner was informed of the data breach and seven months after the report was initially due to be delivered, to warn of the risk of prejudicing the external investigation.
“The possibility of a racist culture and a hostile environment for black members within the party needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency and the Forde inquiry is an important tool for doing just that,” the MPs said.
The signatories to the statement were Marsha de Cordova, the shadow women and equalities secretary, Chi Onwurah, the shadow science minister, and the MPs Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Florence Eshalomi, Kim Johnson, Clive Lewis, Kate Osamor and Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
The racists are on the right of the party and going after racism would get in the way of pursuing the politics of appealing to wealthy old white men.
Which is why people on this forum and in the press don't care.
As many people stated over and over again racism wasn't anything to do with it, people who previously pretending to be disgusted by racism (mainly rich old white men) in the light of actual racism being covered up by Starmer are perfectly happy.
Just to clarify nothing wrong with being rich, old, white or male, I am some of these I will hopefully be all but at least one of them some day, just these are the groups where racism is currently most accepted.
And these same people on the receiving end of this alleged cover-up are happy to do their own cover-up of their own racism towards Jews.
Are we talking about Starmer and his vile lot helping McNicol and that get away with their disgusting lack of action or are we pretending the left are racist again because you have absolutely no political argument and the morons who were supposed to be 20 points ahead are actually complete electoral failures?
How can Labour be 2% behind nationally but 17% behind in Hartlepool? Either one poll is wrong, the other poll is wrong, or the Tories are losing ground much quicker in other areas than people realise.
Thanks. Yes, shades of that tension between state and national polling we saw with WH20.
Usually I favour the national but here - with Hartlepool - I think we have a genuine special case. The "true" GE19 result (adjusted for BXP) was a Con win. I'm assessing against that and factoring in (i) we are coming early out of the pandemic due to a vaccine success associated with the government, (ii) a government which also delivered the promised Good Hard Leave so desired by the denizens of this seat, (iii) people have had little time for Labour and Starmer with Covid being such a blanket story, and (iv) Johnson has particular appeal to the WWC demographic being as he's a "bit of a character" and "not like normal politicians".
They are the tea leaves and the resulting brew tastes bitter and of only one thing. Cons win this by-election.
In GE2015 under Milliband
Lab = 14,076 Cons + UKIP 8,256 + 11,052 = 19,308
Under your logic (and that of other centrists) the true GE15 result was a Con win.
Ge2017 under Corbyn
Lab = 21,969 Cons + UKIP 14,319 + 4,801 = 19,120
Unelectable Corbyn smashed the Tories + right of Tory party combined in his first election in Hartlepool, surely electable Starmer can do even better than that?
Or is it that is impossible for Starmer to match Corbyn because Corbyn is an electoral savant (ONLY by the standards of comparing to other recent Labour leaders) and Starmer is actually the unelectable one?
Makes you think about all those idiots claiming any other Labour leader would be 20 points ahead
I'm not a centrist! Jeez, Jezz. Talk about the insults flying. I'm on the left. But the Cons will win Hartlepool for the reasons I explained. It's the same analysis I did on the day the by-election was called. It's untainted by bias, done to steer my betting and earn punditry kudos points.
And bias is everywhere when it comes to what this means for Starmer. Both left and right of Labour are choked with it and are thus incapable of analyzing the loss correctly. One side will (wrongly) say it's proof that Starmer is a stone cold loser. The other side will (wrongly) claim it means nothing other than he needs more time to undo the damage caused by Corbyn.
In fact it's not much to do with who the leader is. Neither btw was the GE19 disaster about Corbyn and being too leftist. GE17 showed we can do well from the left and with a left wing leader. The appeal of Brexit and "Boris" in the places that mattered electorally was the key to the Con landslide. That election was unwinnable. It was superbly set up - the People vs Parliament dynamic - by Johnson and Cummings and "Get Brexit Done" (in that context and climate) was unstoppable. They reran the eu Ref and united the Leave vote. It was genius and don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
As for Starmer, I'm neither sold on him (I voted for Nandy) nor writing him off. This has been an exceptional period and we're about to move out if it. Let's see how things look in a year. If we're still doing badly then, ok, time to worry and maybe make a change.
I did think about including a disclaimer that I was using your post to argue a point I wanted to make against centrists rather than you particulalry... I probably should have!
Also Corbyn's opponents had no time for discussing the real issues beyond using absolutely everything as a stick to attack their factional enemies with. It is obviously stupid to run things like this but as with football refereeing the most important thing (IMO) is consistency.
I intend to lunge in on the Blairites with leg breaking two footed studs up tackles at every opportunity without receiving a card, as they didn't either, then it is fair for everyone.
Although I apologise for using you as a proxy to get at them.
Ok, I'll let you off this time. Listen, you and I share some politics but we must part company if you're going to actively work against Labour through dislike of Starmer. I know the Blairites did the same (in spades) when Corbyn was leader - often pretending it was all about stopping Brexit lol - but still. This is just the most ghastly regime under the most ghastly PM we have in power right now and for me it has to be all hands on deck, unite to kill.
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
You are a deluded nutter. If it wasn't for the fact that you are supporting a genuine anti-Semite cnut I would think you quite worth laughing at for your incomprehensible stupidity, but the fact that you are supporting, and are a clear apologist for said lying anti-semite I rather wish you would go back to the sewer from which you came. Anti-Semites and their apologists such as yourself are nothing short of scum.
You can get as upset as you want about it but the racist base of Starmer is much older than Corbyns base so Labour won't be a racist party for long, it will belong to the current young and minorities who are racists and you view as sewer dwellers.
Best part is I'm young and healthy enough to be around to probably see it happen, if it is any nconsolation all you angry old guys who hate Corbyn/Black people/ Muslims will be mostly gone then so you won't have to worry about it, the country can stay racist until your generation loses its voting power.
MODERATOR: PLEASE CENSURE THIS POSTER
Why? It's very revealing.
People often laugh at me for pointing out the madness of Woke: I'm talking about people like @TheJezziah
No, we laugh at you for essentially rendering the term meaningless.
No, I've explained consistently and clearly what it means.
It's just your puny brain has trouble processing it.
I have no trouble at all with the amusing concept of you thinking yourself the authoritative source for self-serving word definitions.
Since you can't ever engage with the argument, except with ad hominem, I'd say that demonstrates the limits of your intellect rather neatly.
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
You are a deluded nutter. If it wasn't for the fact that you are supporting a genuine anti-Semite cnut I would think you quite worth laughing at for your incomprehensible stupidity, but the fact that you are supporting, and are a clear apologist for said lying anti-semite I rather wish you would go back to the sewer from which you came. Anti-Semites and their apologists such as yourself are nothing short of scum.
You can get as upset as you want about it but the racist base of Starmer is much older than Corbyns base so Labour won't be a racist party for long, it will belong to the current young and minorities who are racists and you view as sewer dwellers.
Best part is I'm young and healthy enough to be around to probably see it happen, if it is any nconsolation all you angry old guys who hate Corbyn/Black people/ Muslims will be mostly gone then so you won't have to worry about it, the country can stay racist until your generation loses its voting power.
MODERATOR: PLEASE CENSURE THIS POSTER
Why? It's very revealing.
People often laugh at me for pointing out the madness of Woke: I'm talking about people like @TheJezziah
No, we laugh at you for essentially rendering the term meaningless.
No, I've explained consistently and clearly what it means.
It's just your puny brain has trouble processing it.
I have no trouble at all with the amusing concept of you thinking yourself the authoritative source for self-serving word definitions.
Let's not forget that the word was coined by the left's fringe crazy-bunch who used it to insult and attack the rest of us.
A murder-accused PC Tasered an ex-footballer for six times longer than is standard before kicking him twice in the head, a court heard.
PC Benjamin Monk is charged with the murder of Dalian Atkinson during an altercation in Shropshire, in 2016.
He appeared at Birmingham Crown Court for the first day of his trial with co-accused PC Mary Ellen Bettley-Smith, who is charged with assault.
The former Aston Villa star died after he was Tasered for 33 seconds....
...While he was unresponsive, the court heard the police officers "set about him".
Mr Monk kicked him in the head with such force imprints of his boot laces were left in two locations on Mr Atkinson's forehead while Ms Bettley-Smith used her baton to strike him "a number of times" while he lay still in the road, the court was told.
Ms Bettley-Smith too, she said, "was not acting in self defence or in defence of her colleague but also taking out her anger on a man who had earlier put her in fear, with the weapon she had been entrusted with to use lawfully".
I wonder what happened?
Hopefully we're going to find out.
If Boris Johnson wants my vote he should pass a law requiring all police officers to wear bodycams.
The clown wearing a bodycam would save a lot of time and money in inquiries...
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?
Look North was saying a couple of days ago it was close.
I think LAB should get it
If Labour are 3rd in Scotland, down in Wales, lose Hartlepool, WMids, Teeside, and WYorks then it will be an awful night for Starmer. If you'd have told someone in 2014 that those last 4 were probable results then they'd have looked at you veyr funny indeed.
Dont even need to go as far back as 2014.
2017 was the highpoint.
Since then Labour appear to be in a tail spin and replacing a rubbish pilot with an equally rubbish one has accelerated the plane crash
2017 was the outlier election in the same was we have outlier polls. Strip the need for people to vote seriously tactically to try and secure / stop Brexit and there would just have been downward sliding.
Remember that in 2017 - the year of the Jeremy's big victory, 20% more people voted Tory than in 2015. OK so thats not much more than half of the 38% increase for Labour, but look what happened afterwards. Total vote tallies are irrelevant to the actual FPTP result, but indicative for trends.
LABOUR VOTE 2010 8.610m 2015 9.347m 2017 12.878m 2019 10.269m
The Tory vote has risen every year since 2001. The Labour vote - with the brief exception of the two party polarisation that boosted both parties in 2017 - has been crawling upwards. Labour's problem is not Starmer is not Corbyn is not Milliband. Labour's problem is Labour.
The Tory record since 2010 is truly astonishing. I very much doubt that has ever occurred before. To increase both the total vote and share of the vote 3x in a row in office. Amazing.
I'm not sure if increasing both the total vote and share of the vote while in office had ever occurred before 2015, let alone doing both three times in a row?
I had to check 1987 where the swing against Thatcher was all of 0.2% but no other example comes to mind as a possibility.
It does suggest that those who were so certain that the Tory party was going to tear itself apart and self destruct over Europe were not entirely right.
The Tories have ended the civil war over Europe. How many Tories are out there campaigning to rejoin?
On the other hand it is Labour now who might well have the civil war over it. Most of their politician are fervently pro-EU (e.g. Starmer). They are very split over whether to campaign to rejoin!
How can Labour be 2% behind nationally but 17% behind in Hartlepool? Either one poll is wrong, the other poll is wrong, or the Tories are losing ground much quicker in other areas than people realise.
Thanks. Yes, shades of that tension between state and national polling we saw with WH20.
Usually I favour the national but here - with Hartlepool - I think we have a genuine special case. The "true" GE19 result (adjusted for BXP) was a Con win. I'm assessing against that and factoring in (i) we are coming early out of the pandemic due to a vaccine success associated with the government, (ii) a government which also delivered the promised Good Hard Leave so desired by the denizens of this seat, (iii) people have had little time for Labour and Starmer with Covid being such a blanket story, and (iv) Johnson has particular appeal to the WWC demographic being as he's a "bit of a character" and "not like normal politicians".
They are the tea leaves and the resulting brew tastes bitter and of only one thing. Cons win this by-election.
In GE2015 under Milliband
Lab = 14,076 Cons + UKIP 8,256 + 11,052 = 19,308
Under your logic (and that of other centrists) the true GE15 result was a Con win.
Ge2017 under Corbyn
Lab = 21,969 Cons + UKIP 14,319 + 4,801 = 19,120
Unelectable Corbyn smashed the Tories + right of Tory party combined in his first election in Hartlepool, surely electable Starmer can do even better than that?
Or is it that is impossible for Starmer to match Corbyn because Corbyn is an electoral savant (ONLY by the standards of comparing to other recent Labour leaders) and Starmer is actually the unelectable one?
Makes you think about all those idiots claiming any other Labour leader would be 20 points ahead
I'm not a centrist! Jeez, Jezz. Talk about the insults flying. I'm on the left. But the Cons will win Hartlepool for the reasons I explained. It's the same analysis I did on the day the by-election was called. It's untainted by bias, done to steer my betting and earn punditry kudos points.
And bias is everywhere when it comes to what this means for Starmer. Both left and right of Labour are choked with it and are thus incapable of analyzing the loss correctly. One side will (wrongly) say it's proof that Starmer is a stone cold loser. The other side will (wrongly) claim it means nothing other than he needs more time to undo the damage caused by Corbyn.
In fact it's not much to do with who the leader is. Neither btw was the GE19 disaster about Corbyn and being too leftist. GE17 showed we can do well from the left and with a left wing leader. The appeal of Brexit and "Boris" in the places that mattered electorally was the key to the Con landslide. That election was unwinnable. It was superbly set up - the People vs Parliament dynamic - by Johnson and Cummings and "Get Brexit Done" (in that context and climate) was unstoppable. They reran the eu Ref and united the Leave vote. It was genius and don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
As for Starmer, I'm neither sold on him (I voted for Nandy) nor writing him off. This has been an exceptional period and we're about to move out if it. Let's see how things look in a year. If we're still doing badly then, ok, time to worry and maybe make a change.
I did think about including a disclaimer that I was using your post to argue a point I wanted to make against centrists rather than you particulalry... I probably should have!
Also Corbyn's opponents had no time for discussing the real issues beyond using absolutely everything as a stick to attack their factional enemies with. It is obviously stupid to run things like this but as with football refereeing the most important thing (IMO) is consistency.
I intend to lunge in on the Blairites with leg breaking two footed studs up tackles at every opportunity without receiving a card, as they didn't either, then it is fair for everyone.
Although I apologise for using you as a proxy to get at them.
Ok, I'll let you off this time. Listen, you and I share some politics but we must part company if you're going to actively work against Labour through dislike of Starmer. I know the Blairites did the same (in spades) when Corbyn was leader - often pretending it was all about stopping Brexit lol - but still. This is just the most ghastly regime under the most ghastly PM we have in power right now and for me it has to be all hands on deck, unite to kill.
Sorry mate I hate them more than the Tories at the moment, the only argument I can see for voting for Labour is accelerationism which is never something I have subscribed too.
I appreciate the logic of your position I just don't share it.
If you're outraged by the cheap cookies I guess you're shaking with anger with David Amess telling people to vote Tory in the locals because ministers will go the extra mile for Tory councils but not for non Tory councils.
I saw that, while not the same thing, was a very poor thing to do. Governments want to do business with councils who will deliver projects on budget for them. They dont care enormously who runs them. A good local MP would work with any council to get resources in to them. It is the MP who is the conduit for decisions. It helps to have an MP of the ruling party and it helps more for your local council to be competent and willing to work with their MP whatever their allegiances 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.’
"Sadiq Khan sparring at his brother’s boxing club in Earlsfield as mayoral bout nears end"
Mind you my arthritic wife would look better than Starmer did.
I'm not a fan but there's no doubting Khan is a consummate politician.
He always reminds me of one of those classic urban American machine politicians who knew who to play on the grievances of every minority group at the expense of the people whose taxes pay for everything. They are the ones that caused white flight and urban decay between the 1930s and 1980s as the tax base collapsed. Something similar might happen to London.
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.
@Casino_Royale let's play German Greens or British Greens
Police officers need better and more intensive training to protect all basic and human rights, such as freedom of the press, or in the fight against racism. That must become one of the main contents of police training. And it means: a social pluralism must be reflected in the composition of the police to a greater extent than before.
All people have the exclusive right to define their own gender. Intersexual, transsexual and non-binary people have the right to have their self-defined gender officially recog- nized without bureaucratic or medical hurdles. Self-determination requires compre- hensive protection from violence.
X's colonial past has been dealt with far too little in the cultural sphere as well. Extensive research is needed on the origin of objects collected and intangible cultural assets from colonial contexts, their return to the societies of origin, and the decolonization of cultural institutions and the public domain. This can only be done in close cooperation with the descendants of the formerly colonized, domestically as well as internationally.
Racism is an undeniable reality in our society and is more or less present in all structures. Racism - and every other form of group-related hostility towards people - means that many people in X are not safe.
I don’t even understand the argument. Is this an attempt to smear Starmer as an anti-Semite because he is trying to tackle anti-Semitism in Labour? Or is it because Starmer is white, male and centrist so he ‘must’ be racist?
Quite odd. Perhaps the first political opinion on PB that I have failed to comprehend. I’m getting old
I believe the Jezziah is talking about Keir Starmer adopting the symbols and language of the far right, like this:
Wait until you see my Cross of St. George cufflinks.
Wait - I own a clothing article the same as TSE - must go and re-evaluate my tastes
You two are the reason the Union is collapsing. My cufflinks are Union Flags.
I also have Union Jack cufflinks.
As a gag gift from a friend I also have some Welsh flag cufflinks. Which I will never wear.
I'm quite the avid collector of cufflinks, I have about 20 or so, mostly Paul Smith ones.
I'm in not Welsh*, but the Welsh flag is perhaps the best flag in the world.
*not by birth, anyway. 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.
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.
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.
I don’t even understand the argument. Is this an attempt to smear Starmer as an anti-Semite because he is trying to tackle anti-Semitism in Labour? Or is it because Starmer is white, male and centrist so he ‘must’ be racist?
Quite odd. Perhaps the first political opinion on PB that I have failed to comprehend. I’m getting old
I believe the Jezziah is talking about Keir Starmer adopting the symbols and language of the far right, like this:
Wait until you see my Cross of St. George cufflinks.
Wait - I own a clothing article the same as TSE - must go and re-evaluate my tastes
You two are the reason the Union is collapsing. My cufflinks are Union Flags.
I also have Union Jack cufflinks.
As a gag gift from a friend I also have some Welsh flag cufflinks. Which I will never wear.
I'm quite the avid collector of cufflinks, I have about 20 or so, mostly Paul Smith ones.
I' But like any Englishman there's a bit of Welsh in the lineage somewhere. .
Presumably this is why England can still play a form of rugby union?
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?
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.
I will die a happy cisgender privileged white male if we achieve absolutely zero, and yet we achieve this: we consign the woke Left to the electoral toilet FOREVER.
We must destroy them. This is a battle to the death
‘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
I will die a happy cisgender privileged white male if we achieve absolutely zero, and yet we achieve this: we consign the woke Left to the electoral toilet FOREVER.
We must destroy them. This is a battle to the death
Not going to happen mate. You need to respect other people's views if you want them to respect yours.
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?
Look North was saying a couple of days ago it was close.
I think LAB should get it
If Labour are 3rd in Scotland, down in Wales, lose Hartlepool, WMids, Teeside, and WYorks then it will be an awful night for Starmer. If you'd have told someone in 2014 that those last 4 were probable results then they'd have looked at you veyr funny indeed.
Dont even need to go as far back as 2014.
2017 was the highpoint.
Since then Labour appear to be in a tail spin and replacing a rubbish pilot with an equally rubbish one has accelerated the plane crash
2017 was the outlier election in the same was we have outlier polls. Strip the need for people to vote seriously tactically to try and secure / stop Brexit and there would just have been downward sliding.
Remember that in 2017 - the year of the Jeremy's big victory, 20% more people voted Tory than in 2015. OK so thats not much more than half of the 38% increase for Labour, but look what happened afterwards. Total vote tallies are irrelevant to the actual FPTP result, but indicative for trends.
LABOUR VOTE 2010 8.610m 2015 9.347m 2017 12.878m 2019 10.269m
The Tory vote has risen every year since 2001. The Labour vote - with the brief exception of the two party polarisation that boosted both parties in 2017 - has been crawling upwards. Labour's problem is not Starmer is not Corbyn is not Milliband. Labour's problem is Labour.
The Tory record since 2010 is truly astonishing. I very much doubt that has ever occurred before. To increase both the total vote and share of the vote 3x in a row in office. Amazing.
I'm not sure if increasing both the total vote and share of the vote while in office had ever occurred before 2015, let alone doing both three times in a row?
I had to check 1987 where the swing against Thatcher was all of 0.2% but no other example comes to mind as a possibility.
It does suggest that those who were so certain that the Tory party was going to tear itself apart and self destruct over Europe were not entirely right.
Indeed in 1983 and 1987 the Tories actually lost vote share, despite gaining seats in 1983 and gaining votes in 1987. 1992 the Tories gained votes again, but again lost share.
I can't think of any election where the governing party has gained both votes and share, before 2015. I seem to recall Cameron claiming it as unprecedented at Party Conference in 2015, but I'm not sure if I'm right on that or not? Never thought it could then go on to happen three times in a row.
‘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 🤦♂️
His name is removed from the building because his father owned slaves? Quite ridiculous.
Come on guys. Who wants to play? Is this quote from the German Greens or E+W Greens?
X colonial past has been dealt with far too little in the cultural sphere as well. Extensive research is needed on the origin of objects collected and intangible cultural assets from colonial contexts, their return to the societies of origin, and the decolonization of cultural institutions and the public domain. This can only be done in close cooperation with the descendants of the formerly colonized, domestically as well as internationally.
Come on guys. Who wants to play? Is this quote from the German Greens or E+W Greens?
X colonial past has been dealt with far too little in the cultural sphere as well. Extensive research is needed on the origin of objects collected and intangible cultural assets from colonial contexts, their return to the societies of origin, and the decolonization of cultural institutions and the public domain. This can only be done in close cooperation with the descendants of the formerly colonized, domestically as well as internationally.
I will die a happy cisgender privileged white male if we achieve absolutely zero, and yet we achieve this: we consign the woke Left to the electoral toilet FOREVER.
We must destroy them. This is a battle to the death
Not going to happen mate. You need to respect other people's views if you want them to respect yours.
We’re doing pretty well politically. You haven’t won a general election for 16 years and you don’t look anywhere near it, yet
What we have neglected is the cultural side, where you repulsive commies have advanced, stealthily. That needs to be addressed and Boris and Priti have started the job
Come on guys. Who wants to play? Is this quote from the German Greens or E+W Greens?
X colonial past has been dealt with far too little in the cultural sphere as well. Extensive research is needed on the origin of objects collected and intangible cultural assets from colonial contexts, their return to the societies of origin, and the decolonization of cultural institutions and the public domain. This can only be done in close cooperation with the descendants of the formerly colonized, domestically as well as internationally.
Why not both?
Well exactly. My point is clearly that there isn't as much difference between the Green Party here and the Green Party in German on social issues as some people here seem to think.
For what it's worth, that quote is from the German Green Party's website.
I will die a happy cisgender privileged white male if we achieve absolutely zero, and yet we achieve this: we consign the woke Left to the electoral toilet FOREVER.
We must destroy them. This is a battle to the death
Not going to happen mate. You need to respect other people's views if you want them to respect yours.
We’re doing pretty well politically. You haven’t won a general election for 16 years and you don’t look anywhere near it, yet
What we have neglected is the cultural side, where you repulsive commies have advanced, stealthily. That needs to be addressed and Boris and Priti have started the job
Looks like the BBC got into line with orders from the no 10 politburo given the ridiculous amount of coverage given to the 1 billion pound deal with India ! Amazing the amount of coverage this is given but nowhere to be seen is the disaster for fishing and agriculture caused by Brexit .
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
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.
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.
David Baddiel cuts to the heart of this issue - he would be put against the wall and shot as Jewish by the Nazis despite being atheist. Being Jewish isn't about choosing your religion.
Looks like the BBC got into line with orders from the no 10 politburo given the ridiculous amount of coverage given to the 1 billion pound deal with India ! Amazing the amount of coverage this is given but nowhere to be seen is the disaster for fishing and agriculture caused by Brexit .
You mean it isn't newsworthy, after all the comments that the UK wouldn't be able to do any trade deals on its own after leaving the EU?
‘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.
‘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
Looks like the BBC got into line with orders from the no 10 politburo given the ridiculous amount of coverage given to the 1 billion pound deal with India ! Amazing the amount of coverage this is given but nowhere to be seen is the disaster for fishing and agriculture caused by Brexit .
You mean it isn't newsworthy, after all the comments that the UK wouldn't be able to do any trade deals on its own after leaving the EU?
Except nobody said the UK wouldn't be able to do any trade deals on its own, so you've just completely made that up. Come on man.
I will die a happy cisgender privileged white male if we achieve absolutely zero, and yet we achieve this: we consign the woke Left to the electoral toilet FOREVER.
We must destroy them. This is a battle to the death
Not going to happen mate. You need to respect other people's views if you want them to respect yours.
I agree. These people are complete numpties and Liverpool University should be totally ashamed of itself but tolerance, freedom of thought and ultimately freedom itself needs numpties if only to stand in ridicule from the rest of us.
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
71% of young people didn't vote for Corbyn? Must be Tories then...
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.
David Baddiel cuts to the heart of this issue - he would be put against the wall and shot as Jewish by the Nazis despite being atheist. Being Jewish isn't about choosing your religion.
It's an interesting one - I was having just this debate with my daughter a day or 2 ago...
- Many Jews believe that you can only be Jewish if you are maternally descended from Jews. - Some Jews believe that you can convert to the faith - Most antisemites believe that it is racial - and any parentage will do. Not sure what they believe about converts...
Looks like the BBC got into line with orders from the no 10 politburo given the ridiculous amount of coverage given to the 1 billion pound deal with India ! Amazing the amount of coverage this is given but nowhere to be seen is the disaster for fishing and agriculture caused by Brexit .
You mean it isn't newsworthy, after all the comments that the UK wouldn't be able to do any trade deals on its own after leaving the EU?
Except nobody said the UK wouldn't be able to do any trade deals on its own, so you've just completely made that up. Come on man.
Might have been a slight exaggeration. It was all doom and gloom, that the UK would be useless on its own without the EU.
‘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.
And yet people on here claim Wokeness is some benign movement, or, at worst, a silly but distracting fad. It is not. It is an attempt to corrode western self-belief from the foundations up. It is the quintessential expression of ‘cultural Marxism’. It is evil and as long as Labour is associated with it they must not and cannot win
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
71% of young people didn't vote for Corbyn? Must be Tories then...
I didn't claim they were anything except that they obviously didn't support corbyn else surely they would have gone and voted for him. I was merely objecting to Jezziah's unspoken belief that he speaks for all young people young people are I would agree less racist than earlier generations they by and large aren't socialists though.
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.
David Baddiel cuts to the heart of this issue - he would be put against the wall and shot as Jewish by the Nazis despite being atheist. Being Jewish isn't about choosing your religion.
It's an interesting one - I was having just this debate with my daughter a day or 2 ago...
- Many Jews believe that you can only be Jewish if you are maternally descended from Jews. - Some Jews believe that you can convert to the faith - Most antisemites believe that it is racial - and any parentage will do. Not sure what they believe about converts...
I fall into category 1, although the "lineage" is likely to die with me and my brother.
Looks like the BBC got into line with orders from the no 10 politburo given the ridiculous amount of coverage given to the 1 billion pound deal with India ! Amazing the amount of coverage this is given but nowhere to be seen is the disaster for fishing and agriculture caused by Brexit .
You mean it isn't newsworthy, after all the comments that the UK wouldn't be able to do any trade deals on its own after leaving the EU?
Just wait when India issues its demands for a full trade deal ! I wonder what the blue rinses from the Shires will make of lots more freedom of movement from India to the U.K. or is the xenophobia only reserved for EU nationals .
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...
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...
Please rejoin Labour. They need people with your youthful energy, intelligence and enthusiasm
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."
Looks like the BBC got into line with orders from the no 10 politburo given the ridiculous amount of coverage given to the 1 billion pound deal with India ! Amazing the amount of coverage this is given but nowhere to be seen is the disaster for fishing and agriculture caused by Brexit .
You mean it isn't newsworthy, after all the comments that the UK wouldn't be able to do any trade deals on its own after leaving the EU?
Just wait when India issues its demands for a full trade deal ! I wonder what the blue rinses from the Shires will make of lots more freedom of movement from India to the U.K. or is the xenophobia only reserved for EU nationals .
I doubt freedom of movement would be part of the deal. Maybe a reciprocal relaxation on visa rules, but they are two very different things.
‘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.
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.
David Baddiel cuts to the heart of this issue - he would be put against the wall and shot as Jewish by the Nazis despite being atheist. Being Jewish isn't about choosing your religion.
It's an interesting one - I was having just this debate with my daughter a day or 2 ago...
- Many Jews believe that you can only be Jewish if you are maternally descended from Jews. - Some Jews believe that you can convert to the faith - Most antisemites believe that it is racial - and any parentage will do. Not sure what they believe about converts...
On your second point, I'm not aware of any Jews that don't accept the idea of converts. It's not a proselytising religion, though, so your third point tends to be somewhat moot in practice.
"However, there’s much to worry about when 58% of the population seemingly think the country is on the brink of collapse and Le Pen is predicted to poll up to 48% on the second ballot of the presidential election. The Harris survey, which found that 49% of respondents would support the army seizing power, comes at a time of distrust of the president, who finds himself taking the blame for what he and his predecessors have failed to achieve: stopping Islamist terrorist attacks and tackling crime."
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.
Politico.com - Bad blood: Pro-Trump megadonors duke it out in Cornhusker country The governor of Nebraska is wading into the race to replace him, criticizing a fellow Republican millionaire and Trump backer.
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
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.
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.
Shame then that the majority of the younger generation didn't want him.
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.
David Baddiel cuts to the heart of this issue - he would be put against the wall and shot as Jewish by the Nazis despite being atheist. Being Jewish isn't about choosing your religion.
It's an interesting one - I was having just this debate with my daughter a day or 2 ago...
- Many Jews believe that you can only be Jewish if you are maternally descended from Jews. - Some Jews believe that you can convert to the faith - Most antisemites believe that it is racial - and any parentage will do. Not sure what they believe about converts...
I fall into category 1, although the "lineage" is likely to die with me and my brother.
In WW2 when the German army encountered Khazars in the Soviet Union, it created a certain amount of confusion for the SS & Co. Having to deal with what were considered Aryan Jews!
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?
‘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)
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.
My son is called David (which says all you need to know about my lack of imagination) but he was the only one in his year at school. OTOH I have 3 friends also called David out of a fairly small group at the Faculty. Its a name that has definitely gone out of fashion in a big way.
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.
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?
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.
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!
Comments
Still think they should have gone with "a New Hope"....
I mean I assume it looks different.... lets specify an actual nazi flag with the colour scheme and everything the same...
2010 Gordon Brown Lab lose by 2.09m
2015 EICIPM Lab lose by 1.97m
2017 Jezza Lab lose by 0.76m
2019 Get Brexit done Jezza Lab lose by 3.69m
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.
People who criticised Abbott alone and exclusively are probably racist. People who criticise Abbott, RLB and the others are not and its wrong to mischaracterise the criticism of her as "racist".
But you're right entirely, Ed was "BAME". As of course was Disraeli and Howard.
The UK had its first "BAME" Prime Minister in the nineteenth century.
Can Mr J Mercer be brought back into govt ?
The scenario outlined reduces the threshold for Legislation to pass. Delegations would be counted together, and 2/4 would be required to pass. To expand on the example above, slightly. 13 Seats for England vote for, with 13 Seats in Wales voting for. Even if the entire delegation of Scotland and Northern Ireland (50 seats in total), plus the 12 votes against from the English and Welsh seats voted against it for an overall split of 26 for vs 74 against, it would still pass (26 being the minimum legislation could be passed on). Admittedly, you could have the situation where England's delegation votes for a thing, with 25 votes (a majority in the Union), but the other nations vote against and so the legislation is not passed (For the Brexit Deal, some quick calculations would see it get 13 English votes, but fall short of majorities in the other three delegations. Johnson would have needed the DUP onside). I see the point about blocking, although the Commons would still be the supreme chamber constitutionally and so something like the arrangement between the Commons and the Lords might emerge.
Of course, the mere presence of such a chamber would change voting behaviour and, more importantly, the behaviour of the parties. A party could no longer depend on a united England for legislative success and would have to focus in other areas of the country, which in my opinion, in a Union of Partners, is right. Others, of course, can take a different view, but I fail to see how the Union can long survive under those circumstances.
As for more devolution, I suppose I take your point, but Scotland are not anymore interested in weights and measures, or the OS or even Antarctica than anyone else. It'll be immigration policy, nuclear policy, the constitution, that catch people's eye and these are things that are much more difficult to devolve. But suppose we end up with a long term settlement of Devomax for Scotland. What then for Wales, if they demand the same, and NI? What if a political will for devolution in English regions emerges? Devomax for all? What then is the point of a Westminster Government and the Union?
It's just your puny brain has trouble processing it.
Which is why people on this forum and in the press don't care.
As many people stated over and over again racism wasn't anything to do with it, people who previously pretending to be disgusted by racism (mainly rich old white men) in the light of actual racism being covered up by Starmer are perfectly happy.
Just to clarify nothing wrong with being rich, old, white or male, I am some of these I will hopefully be all but at least one of them some day, just these are the groups where racism is currently most accepted.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
The difference in performance is that in 2019 the Tories increased their vote again and kept the UKIP/Brexit switchers on board. Labour on the other hand shed their coalition and fell back a significant way towards where they started in 2015.
This isn't all bad news for Labour. Keeping to the 2010 > 2015 and then 2015 > 2019 trend they should get to around 11.3m at the next election which was good enough for a Tory majority in 2015. The problem - one that few Corbynites want to recognise or understand - is that it takes two to tango. To win on 11.3m you need the other party to crash. It doesn't matter who leads Labour, you need the Tories to drop 4m votes to have a prayer.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_districtpoll_20210504.html
From CON: Cherwell
Haha. No. That's not happening.
✅ East of England: 0
✅ North East & Yorkshire: 0
✅ South East: 0
✅ South West: 0
✅ London: 0
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1389564707225411585
Surely we must be opening up too slowly now? I know it is after a bank holiday and numbers will go up tomorrow. Nonetheless, they are very low now.
The Tories didn't stand still claiming gays were bad, they moved with the generational views, Labour party will have to do the same, from racist starmer views held currently to a more anti racist Corbynista views. Like the Labour party had to more towards Corbyn on gay rights and away from homophobia.
The future is bright in terms of anti racism.
And now, I must work. Good day.
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.
It does suggest that those who were so certain that the Tory party was going to tear itself apart and self destruct over Europe were not entirely right.
On the other hand it is Labour now who might well have the civil war over it. Most of their politician are fervently pro-EU (e.g. Starmer). They are very split over whether to campaign to rejoin!
I appreciate the logic of your position I just don't share it.
https://twitter.com/kyleworton/status/1389532009605775364?s=21
‘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.’
Police officers need better and more intensive training to protect all basic and human rights, such as freedom of the press, or in the fight against racism. That must become one of the main contents of police training. And it means: a social pluralism must be reflected in the composition of the police to a greater extent than before.
All people have the exclusive right to define their own gender. Intersexual, transsexual and non-binary people have the right to have their self-defined gender officially recog- nized without bureaucratic or medical hurdles. Self-determination requires compre- hensive protection from violence.
X's colonial past has been dealt with far too little in the cultural sphere as well. Extensive research is needed on the origin of objects collected and intangible cultural assets from colonial contexts, their return to the societies of origin, and the decolonization of cultural institutions and the public domain. This can only be done in close cooperation with the descendants of the formerly colonized, domestically as well as internationally.
Racism is an undeniable reality in our society and is more or less present in all structures. Racism - and every other form of group-related hostility towards people - means that many people in X are not safe.
*not by birth, anyway. 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.
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.
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?
We must destroy them. This is a battle to the death
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.
I can't think of any election where the governing party has gained both votes and share, before 2015. I seem to recall Cameron claiming it as unprecedented at Party Conference in 2015, but I'm not sure if I'm right on that or not? Never thought it could then go on to happen three times in a row.
X colonial past has been dealt with far too little in the cultural sphere as well. Extensive research is needed on the origin of objects collected and intangible cultural assets from colonial contexts, their return to the societies of origin, and the decolonization of cultural institutions and the public domain. This can only be done in close cooperation with the descendants of the formerly colonized, domestically as well as internationally.
What we have neglected is the cultural side, where you repulsive commies have advanced, stealthily. That needs to be addressed and Boris and Priti have started the job
40 years of endless Tory government should do it
For what it's worth, that quote is from the German Green Party's website.
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.
Jean-Yves Camus"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/04/coup-france-far-right-president-marine-le-pen
Idiots.
And worse - malign idiots, without the intelligence to realise how stupid they are.
@ElectionMapsUK
·
2h
Most Common Candidate Names in the May 2021 Elections:
David: 542
John: 471
Paul: 375
Richard: 293
Peter: 275
Via
@democlub
- Many Jews believe that you can only be Jewish if you are maternally descended from Jews.
- Some Jews believe that you can convert to the faith
- Most antisemites believe that it is racial - and any parentage will do. Not sure what they believe about converts...
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...
No laughing please.
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?
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.
The governor of Nebraska is wading into the race to replace him, criticizing a fellow Republican millionaire and Trump backer.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/04/trump-megadonors-cornhusker-county-485306
He irritates me greatly but that's probably a good thing for Lab.
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
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?
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.
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 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 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.