Is it acceptable to vote for someone because they are white?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I was reading an article about the Labour leadership in the Guardian, and there was an interesting comment from Dinae Abbot's campaign - basically that she is appealing to the 'black' vote (and women, and the left apparently).

So, my question is would it be acceptable for me to vote for somone because they were white, and the other black and asian candidates dont represent me?

Also, question two is why is there a 'black' vote? Do black people not have the same minds, individual personalities and political opinions as any other block vote? There is no 'white' vote.

I do sometime wonder who it is that keeps race as an issue.

[IWasThere2016]

I was reading an article about the Labour leadership in the Guardian, and there was an interesting comment from Dinae Abbot's campaign - basically that she is appealing to the 'black' vote (and women, and the left apparently).

So, my question is would it be acceptable for me to vote for somone because they were white, and the other black and asian candidates dont represent me?

Also, question two is why is there a 'black' vote? Do black people not have the same minds, individual personalities and political opinions as any other block vote? There is no 'white' vote.

I do sometime wonder who it is that keeps race as an issue.

If true equality is the issue then yes it is .. as it makes it even for all to choose by whatever means they see fit.

It is rather pointless in my mind to vote that way as however can Diane Abbot or anyone else pass anything which is race baised? Surely there would be steps to stop such a thing. I mean whatever next .. a ban on Catholics becoming royalty?!?

[ballengeich]

If true equality is the issue then yes it is .. as it makes it even for all to choose by whatever means they see fit.

It is rather pointless in my mind to vote that way as however can Diane Abbot or anyone else pass anything which is race baised? Surely there would be steps to stop such a thing.

In an ideal world, colour (and gender) would make no differnce to how people would vote. As the world is, minorities need spokespeople (persons?). All Scots should realise this in the UK.

I mean whatever next .. a ban on Catholics becoming royalty?!?

Obviously, female protestants can become head of state in the Vatican.

[IWasThere2016]

Obviously, female protestants can become head of state in the Vatican.

Only if she has abused young boys first :offski:

[J-C]

I was reading an article about the Labour leadership in the Guardian, and there was an interesting comment from Dinae Abbot's campaign - basically that she is appealing to the 'black' vote (and women, and the left apparently).

So, my question is would it be acceptable for me to vote for somone because they were white, and the other black and asian candidates dont represent me?

Also, question two is why is there a 'black' vote? Do black people not have the same minds, individual personalities and political opinions as any other block vote? There is no 'white' vote.

I do sometime wonder who it is that keeps race as an issue.

It's called voting for the BNP party.:greengrin

[Woody1985]

It's generally acceptable for black or asian people to be racist to white people but not vice versa. That's my experience in life. When I was racially abused from Asians for being white whilst walking through Southside it was okay 'because asian to white racism doesn't have the same deep rooted hatred and meaning that white on black / asian does'.

Although it was good to see a black councillor taken to court for a racist remark recently, and not because she's black but because it shows uniformality.

Anyone explicitly campaigning for black people to vote for them because of the colour of their own skin is a racist IMO.

Along the same lines, Obama received votes from people whom had never voted before purely based on the colour of his skin. Are those people racist because the only reason they voted for him was because he was black? I'm not convinced that a white person couldn't do an equal or better job than him so you could argue they are but because of the history I can understand why they would. Murky waters!

[Woody1985]

Given that you've only had 4 replies I'm assuming the answer is yes.

If someone said please white people vote for me it would be like flies round ***** on here asking for them to resign, banished from their workplace etc etc.

[shamo9]

It's generally acceptable for black or asian people to be racist to white people but not vice versa. That's my experience in life.

Subjective individual experience + generally = incompatible

You've had unfortunate experiences during your life which naturally left you feeling emotional, but you can't paint a whole demographic with the same brush. It's the old Muslim/ Terrorist; football fan/hooligan; student/scrounger argument.

You're complaining about racism against anything and everything which is quite right, but rather than castigate both whites and blacks, we have to look at the reason why this sort of thing happens.

Reason: we live in one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. The gap between rich and poor is growing. This creates conflict and crime, the poor will try everything in their power to get what a capitalist society deems important (ipod, T.V, computer). Ethnic minorities, such as blacks, are also more likely to be part of the poor, so Abbot's comments becomes more about the the enduring nature of class rather than superficial racism.

What she is trying to say is, "I'm black (poor and discriminated against), I'm not your generic white male from Oxbridge with a silver spoon shoved where the sun don't shine. I lived your kind of life (poor), I understand firsthand the difficulties you face and are therefore the best candidate to represent you."

She's basically trying to stir the contentious question: whether a rich white male (the sort that dominates Parliament) can really make informed decisions about people on benefits etc? Do they really understand the ramification their decisions will have on the poor? Do we need people from different backgrounds (race, wealth, religion) in Parliament for our system to be democratic?

As long as rich white men dominate, we'll get the 'OMG I'm a black/Asian/women/working class/...' Like it or not, these groups are not represented fairly.

Compare the backgrounds of Miliband, Cameron and Clegg. Any real alternatives?

So to answer the title of the thread, no, it is not acceptable at this moment. Why? Because the majority of Parliament is white. We are represented more than fairly, others not so much.

[Hibrandenburg]

Subjective individual experience + generally = incompatible

You've had unfortunate experiences during your life which naturally left you feeling emotional, but you can't paint a whole demographic with the same brush. It's the old Muslim/ Terrorist; football fan/hooligan; student/scrounger argument.

You're complaining about racism against anything and everything which is quite right, but rather than castigate both whites and blacks, we have to look at the reason why this sort of thing happens.

Reason: we live in one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. The gap between rich and poor is growing. This creates conflict and crime, the poor will try everything in their power to get what a capitalist society deems important (ipod, T.V, computer). Ethnic minorities, such as blacks, are also more likely to be part of the poor, so Abbot's comments becomes more about the the enduring nature of class rather than superficial racism.

What she is trying to say is, "I'm black (poor and discriminated against), I'm not your generic white male from Oxbridge with a silver spoon shoved where the sun don't shine. I lived your kind of life (poor), I understand firsthand the difficulties you face and are therefore the best candidate to represent you."
She's basically trying to stir the contentious question: whether a rich white male (the sort that dominates Parliament) can really make informed decisions about people on benefits etc? Do they really understand the ramification their decisions will have on the poor? Do we need people from different backgrounds (race, wealth, religion) in Parliament for our system to be democratic?

As long as rich white men dominate, we'll get the 'OMG I'm a black/Asian/women/working class/...' Like it or not, these groups are not represented fairly.

Compare the backgrounds of Miliband, Cameron and Clegg. Any real alternatives?

So to answer the title of the thread, no, it is not acceptable at this moment. Why? Because the majority of Parliament is white. We are represented more than fairly, others not so much.


Eh! Then why doesn't she say just that. It's racist endof.

[shamo9]

Eh! Then why doesn't she say just that. It's racist endof.

... Er, because she's black?:wink:

But seriously, politicians are pretty stupid when it comes to this. Since when do they give straight or elaborated answers about anything? I remember the very same women squirming on that show she used to be when asked to confirm if she actually believed black mothers were better than white ones.

Politicians think if they mention 'meritocracy' and 'classless society' often enough people will actually forget how unequal we are. It's all so damn P.R driven to the point where you can't really fully gather what a person stands for until they retire from politics altogether. Abbot's black, that's her gimmick to get power, same with Brown's 'I'm a nonsense Scot who can steady ship'.

[heretoday]

The underlying rule is, and has been for ages, that the black, Asian and other ethnic communities have been exploited and ill-treated down the years and are still perceived generally as being at a disadvantage in life.

Any expressed opinions in their favour are not called racist. It's just a case of helping the underdogs.

Remarks in favour of the white community, however, are called racist because the whites have been traditionally the masters and exploiters. They ought to know better and be a bit more ashamed of themselves.

Whether this situation has any relevance whatsoever today is open to debate.

[Woody1985]

1. Subjective individual experience + generally = incompatible

You've had unfortunate experiences during your life which naturally left you feeling emotional, but you can't paint a whole demographic with the same brush. It's the old Muslim/ Terrorist; football fan/hooligan; student/scrounger argument.

You're complaining about racism against anything and everything which is quite right, but rather than castigate both whites and blacks, we have to look at the reason why this sort of thing happens.

Reason: we live in one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. The gap between rich and poor is growing. This creates conflict and crime, the poor will try everything in their power to get what a capitalist society deems important (ipod, T.V, computer). Ethnic minorities, such as blacks, are also more likely to be part of the poor, so Abbot's comments becomes more about the the enduring nature of class rather than superficial racism.

2. What she is trying to say is, "I'm black (poor and discriminated against), I'm not your generic white male from Oxbridge with a silver spoon shoved where the sun don't shine. I lived your kind of life (poor), I understand firsthand the difficulties you face and are therefore the best candidate to represent you."

She's basically trying to stir the contentious question: whether a rich white male (the sort that dominates Parliament) can really make informed decisions about people on benefits etc? Do they really understand the ramification their decisions will have on the poor? Do we need people from different backgrounds (race, wealth, religion) in Parliament for our system to be democratic?

As long as rich white men dominate, we'll get the 'OMG I'm a black/Asian/women/working class/...' Like it or not, these groups are not represented fairly.

Compare the backgrounds of Miliband, Cameron and Clegg. Any real alternatives?

So to answer the title of the thread, no, it is not acceptable at this moment. Why? Because the majority of Parliament is white. We are represented more than fairly, others not so much.

1. I appreciate that but as I say, even at a local site level you'd have a lot of people condemning the white guy/gal for the same thing.

2. I completely understand why she's trying to campaign for a 'black vote', basically another political pawn that she can use to her advantage. Guess what, I don't have anything in common with the rich, private educated parlimentarians either. Why doesn't she just say that she's campainging for the poor and underprivileged? What do rich, upper class black people think of her 'black' vote?

FWIW, I actually wanted her to win the leaders race (no pun!) because she offers something different but now it makes me think she's really just the same but playing it from a different angle.

If she does get into power then I suspect we'll see her going around loads of poor black communities as part of her PR drive with little emphasis on the poor white. It's all a load of bull**** from all of them.

[J-C]

It's generally acceptable for black or asian people to be racist to white people but not vice versa. That's my experience in life. When I was racially abused from Asians for being white whilst walking through Southside it was okay 'because asian to white racism doesn't have the same deep rooted hatred and meaning that white on black / asian does'.

Although it was good to see a black councillor taken to court for a racist remark recently, and not because she's black but because it shows uniformality.

Anyone explicitly campaigning for black people to vote for them because of the colour of their own skin is a racist IMO.

Along the same lines, Obama received votes from people whom had never voted before purely based on the colour of his skin. Are those people racist because the only reason they voted for him was because he was black? I'm not convinced that a white person couldn't do an equal or better job than him so you could argue they are but because of the history I can understand why they would. Murky waters!

When doing my PT course in Hatfield a couple of yearss ago, I flew down every week on a sunday, i got to the hotel one week and being a bit peckish I went to the Subway for a sandwich. The Asian gent behind the counter refused to take my good Royal Bank of Scotland £20 note as payment, saying " we can't take them, they're no good". After a few choice words I noticed sitting on his counter a little card machine to pay my bill with, yep you've guessed it, it was a Royal Bank of Scotland card machine. I sort of pointed out the error of his ways but still he was being rather argumentative, so I asked to speak to the manager. He came through from the back and I pointed out the fact that the £20 note and the card machine was from the same banking group, he appologised and gave me the sandwich free, I then heard the little Asian bloke being bollocked through the back of the shop.
So there you have it I was a victim of racism albeit because I was Scottish and not due to the colour of my skin but racism comes from ignorance, which is why people have to be educated properly to accept varied ethnic groups as equal.

[Hibs Class]

When doing my PT course in Hatfield a couple of yearss ago, I flew down every week on a sunday, i got to the hotel one week and being a bit peckish I went to the Subway for a sandwich. The Asian gent behind the counter refused to take my good Royal Bank of Scotland £20 note as payment, saying " we can't take them, they're no good". After a few choice words I noticed sitting on his counter a little card machine to pay my bill with, yep you've guessed it, it was a Royal Bank of Scotland card machine. I sort of pointed out the error of his ways but still he was being rather argumentative, so I asked to speak to the manager. He came through from the back and I pointed out the fact that the £20 note and the card machine was from the same banking group, he appologised and gave me the sandwich free, I then heard the little Asian bloke being bollocked through the back of the shop.
So there you have it I was a victim of racism albeit because I was Scottish and not due to the colour of my skin but racism comes from ignorance, which is why people have to be educated properly to accept varied ethnic groups as equal.


Don't think you were really a victim of racism. It was your money rather than you that was being objected to (if you disagree, consider what would have happened if you'd tried to pay with an English note). It's a nuisance, and reflects the inconvenience that the English have in handling Scottish money, as they find it difficlut to issue in change. Irritating yes; racist no.

[Betty Boop]

When doing my PT course in Hatfield a couple of yearss ago, I flew down every week on a sunday, i got to the hotel one week and being a bit peckish I went to the Subway for a sandwich. The Asian gent behind the counter refused to take my good Royal Bank of Scotland £20 note as payment, saying " we can't take them, they're no good". After a few choice words I noticed sitting on his counter a little card machine to pay my bill with, yep you've guessed it, it was a Royal Bank of Scotland card machine. I sort of pointed out the error of his ways but still he was being rather argumentative, so I asked to speak to the manager. He came through from the back and I pointed out the fact that the £20 note and the card machine was from the same banking group, he appologised and gave me the sandwich free, I then heard the little Asian bloke being bollocked through the back of the shop.
So there you have it I was a victim of racism albeit because I was Scottish and not due to the colour of my skin but racism comes from ignorance, which is why people have to be educated properly to accept varied ethnic groups as equal.

Is it not the case that only English notes are legal tender in England and Wales ? :dunno: It's not only England that won't accept Scottish banknotes, try changing money abroad, most countries I have been to won't touch our notes with a bargepole.

[Woody1985]

Don't think you were really a victim of racism. It was your money rather than you that was being objected to (if you disagree, consider what would have happened if you'd tried to pay with an English note). It's a nuisance, and reflects the inconvenience that the English have in handling Scottish money, as they find it difficlut to issue in change. Irritating yes; racist no.

I agree with that. The money was the issue here.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It's not right, but it frequently happens. You only need to look at obamas campaign to see that lots of black people voted for him because he was black, in fact lots of whites voted for him for that reason as well.

Personally I would vote for someone because they most closely represent my views and if that person happened to be white / black / brown so be it, as long as there no maroon I couldnae gie a ****!!

[sleeping giant]

When doing my PT course in Hatfield a couple of yearss ago, I flew down every week on a sunday, i got to the hotel one week and being a bit peckish I went to the Subway for a sandwich. The Asian gent behind the counter refused to take my good Royal Bank of Scotland £20 note as payment, saying " we can't take them, they're no good". After a few choice words I noticed sitting on his counter a little card machine to pay my bill with, yep you've guessed it, it was a Royal Bank of Scotland card machine. I sort of pointed out the error of his ways but still he was being rather argumentative, so I asked to speak to the manager. He came through from the back and I pointed out the fact that the £20 note and the card machine was from the same banking group, he appologised and gave me the sandwich free, I then heard the little Asian bloke being bollocked through the back of the shop.
So there you have it I was a victim of racism albeit because I was Scottish and not due to the colour of my skin but racism comes from ignorance, which is why people have to be educated properly to accept varied ethnic groups as equal.

I don;t think you were the victim of racism.
There is no such term as "legal tender" and shops can accept what they wish.

Saying that , i was in a post office in Liverpool trying to buy fags and juice when the old dear behind the counter refused to take my Scottish £20.
"We dont take them , they're all forgeries":grr:



Legal tender does not exist. Legal currency is a different matter.
Scots notes are not legal currency in England.

Still shocking though. I can still deposit any British currency in any bank which enables them to lend out 10x what i deposited:rolleyes:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don;t think you were the victim of racism.
There is no such term as "legal tender" and shops can accept what they wish.

Saying that , i was in a post office in Liverpool trying to buy fags and juice when the old dear behind the counter refused to take my Scottish £20.
"We dont take them , they're all forgeries":grr:



Legal tender does not exist. Legal currency is a different matter.
Scots notes are not legal currency in England.

Still shocking though. I can still deposit any British currency in any bank which enables them to lend out 10x what i deposited:rolleyes:

Yes and english bank notes are not legal currency in scotland, coins are but not notes. However scottish law is enlightened enough to get round this by saying that anything that is commonly accepted as money should be acepted. Right I'm off to subway with my pegs:greengrin

[J-C]

Ok maybe not a victim of racism, that was a bit tongue in cheek there, it was the fact that the guy serving could hardly speak English and the card machine sitting next to the till was the same bank as the note I was trying to use.( a bit of irony there somewhere ):wink:

[J-C]

Yes and english bank notes are not legal currency in scotland, coins are but not notes. However scottish law is enlightened enough to get round this by saying that anything that is commonly accepted as money should be acepted. Right I'm off to subway with my pegs:greengrin

Seemingly no notes are legel tender in Scotland, only coins.

http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_7.html

[bighairyfaeleith]

Seemingly no notes are legel tender in Scotland, only coins.

http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_7.html

Thats right, but we are enlightened enough to get round it, unlike the english:smug:

[John_the_angus_hibby]

It's not right, but it frequently happens. You only need to look at obamas campaign to see that lots of black people voted for him because he was black, in fact lots of whites voted for him for that reason as well.

Personally I would vote for someone because they most closely represent my views and if that person happened to be white / black / brown so be it, as long as there no maroon I couldnae gie a ****!!

I agree with your sentiment; but you/we align yourself with those of similar views. And views, etc are set by experience, environment, education...etc. A lot of black people voted for Obama because they projected their views onto the candidate that they believed matched their own.

And as for Diane Abbott. I always sort of respected her as a straight voice and I like her on that TV programme with Micheal Smarmy Tory (you know who I mean). But after reading Simon Hoggart's diary piece a month or so ago I changed my mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jun/12/simon-hoggarts-week

[Woody1985]

I agree with your sentiment; but you/we align yourself with those of similar views. And views, etc are set by experience, environment, education...etc. A lot of black people voted for Obama because they projected their views onto the candidate that they believed matched their own.

And as for Diane Abbott. I always sort of respected her as a straight voice and I like her on that TV programme with Micheal Smarmy Tory (you know who I mean). But after reading Simon Hoggart's diary piece a month or so ago I changed my mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jun/12/simon-hoggarts-week

So you think that all those black people who had never voted before did so on this occasion because Obama held the same views as them on foreign policy, healthcare, economy etc etc. Bull****.

[hibsdaft]

So you think that all those black people who had never voted before did so on this occasion because Obama held the same views as them on foreign policy, healthcare, economy etc etc. Bull****.

totally, but they didn't vote for Obama because they all hate white people either: they don't.

its racial politics, not racist politics. both are a scourge on society but the latter is explicitly hateful, the former just ******ed.

[Woody1985]

totally, but they didn't vote for Obama because they all hate white people either: they don't.

its racial politics, not racist politics. both are a scourge on society but the latter is explicitly hateful, the former just ******ed.

That made me smile.

I'm not sure I'm clear on the (very thin?) line between the two you mention.

Is NOT voting for someone of their opposite skin colour racist because you feel that they are not going to represent you the same as they will others of their colour? Or is it simply paranoia? This I can understand and alluded to in my post above re Obama. I suppose there's not really an answer.

Is someone a racist because they choose not to shop in a pakistani shop? Is that the same as choosing not to vote for someone because they are white/black/whatever?

[Twa Cairpets]

That made me smile.

I'm not sure I'm clear on the (very thin?) line between the two you mention.

Is NOT voting for someone of their opposite skin colour racist because you feel that they are not going to represent you the same as they will others of their colour? Or is it simply paranoia? This I can understand and alluded to in my post above re Obama. I suppose there's not really an answer.

Is someone a racist because they choose not to shop in a pakistani shop? Is that the same as choosing not to vote for someone because they are white/black/whatever?

That would be shopkeeperist.

The danger here is that any decision made by anyone that could in anyway be perceived as having a racial/racist element automatically becomes a bigoted stance. There are shops I dont like that have white shopkeepers, I dont use them because the proprietors are tubes. Equally, an asian shopkeeper who I dont like because he is a tube is not patronised because he is a tube, not because he is asian.

It is not "political correctness gone mad", it is a misunderstanding of motives and the fear of being seen as being racist (which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing if considered correctly).

But to the specific point, it is of course more likely that a black voter in the US will vote for Obama because there is a clear connection between them and him - this is a fact, and doesnt make their decision racist. i would tend to vote for someone who (a) has policies I can agree with, and (b) has a personality I am more likely to have something in common with.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That would be shopkeeperist.

The danger here is that any decision made by anyone that could in anyway be perceived as having a racial/racist element automatically becomes a bigoted stance. There are shops I dont like that have white shopkeepers, I dont use them because the proprietors are tubes. Equally, an asian shopkeeper who I dont like because he is a tube is not patronised because he is a tube, not because he is asian.

It is not "political correctness gone mad", it is a misunderstanding of motives and the fear of being seen as being racist (which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing if considered correctly).

But to the specific point, it is of course more likely that a black voter in the US will vote for Obama because there is a clear connection between them and him - this is a fact, and doesnt make their decision racist. i would tend to vote for someone who (a) has policies I can agree with, and (b) has a personality I am more likely to have something in common with.

this is where i disagree with you though - yes, if a candidate just happens to be black but if a black candidate feels they represent black people just because they too are black, then i think that is quite dodgy.

Ask yourself this, what would people think if i said, im voting for andy burnham because he is white?

I think it is clear double standards.

[hibsbollah]

this is where i disagree with you though - yes, if a candidate just happens to be black but if a black candidate feels they represent black people just because they too are black, then i think that is quite dodgy.

Ask yourself this, what would people think if i said, im voting for andy burnham because he is white?

I think it is clear double standards.

Its not double standards. Diane Abbott is selling herself as a black woman candidate because women and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in politics. The less political parties are representative of the electorate the more the electorate becomes disenchanted with it.

In the unlikely event that privately-educated, white, tied and suited male 40 somethings become underrepresented at Westminster, you can talk about double standards.

[Hibbyradge]

Obviously, female protestants can become head of state in the Vatican.

I can't understand the analogy.

The Pope is the head of the Catholic church. That's a religion for people who choose to be Catholics.

Why would someone who wasn't a Catholic aspire to be the head of that religion?

As far as I'm aware, the royal family isn't a religion.

[Hibbyradge]

There is no 'white' vote.



I'm pretty sure I've heard political commentators referring to "the white, middle class vote".

[Beefster]

I'm pretty sure I've heard political commentators referring to "the white, middle class vote".

'Middle England' pretty much equates to that.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've got a bit of sympathy for people who aren't used to seeing Scottish bank notes. I used to have to check myself about accepting Northern Irish ones. It's just that you get thrown if it's something you're not used to.

I think it's horrible that poiticians stoop to using race as a vote winner, I dont think it helps anyone if we retreat into silos.

I remember a few years back, a Scottish political commentator talking about the Tories in Scotland. He said they'd have a better chance if they could appeal to the "Rangers vote".

A subtle hint that they should play up their Unionist ideals in a way that would appeal to bigots IMO.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Its not double standards. Diane Abbott is selling herself as a black woman candidate because women and ethnic minorities are underrepresented in politics. The less political parties are representative of the electorate the more the electorate becomes disenchanted with it.

In the unlikely event that privately-educated, white, tied and suited male 40 somethings become underrepresented at Westminster, you can talk about double standards.

I dont agree - she is presenting herself as a 'black' candidate - not a black woman. Im sure women are underrepresented in parliament, but you dont see women campaigning that other women should vote for them because they are women do you? Vote for me, i have breasts so i automatically know what every other person with breasts wants.

Thats as ludicrous as someone saying i have black skin, therefore i am the best candidate to represent other people with black skin.

Here in Scotland, black people make up something ludicrous like 0.2% (i think) of the population - so by your rationale, there will never be a black MSP because why would anyone white vote for a black person, because obviously black people can only represent black people, so the reverse must be true.

Makes you wonder why the USA has a black president doesnt it? Or does that show tha white people can see past the colour of skin and vote for someone based on there credentials, whereas black people can only vote for black people?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm pretty sure I've heard political commentators referring to "the white, middle class vote".

Fair point, but what i mean is that there is likewise a white working class vote, and a white liberal vote, and a white non voter...so basically we have political divisions as opposed to racial ones.

The point im making is that black skin should not qualify you for a job like an MP anymore than it should disqualify you.

[lapsedhibee]

Vote for me, i have breasts

Wasn't there some wifie stood for the Italian parliament a few years ago on that very platform? :yum yum:

[hibsbollah]

I dont agree - she is presenting herself as a 'black' candidate - not a black woman. Im sure women are underrepresented in parliament, but you dont see women campaigning that other women should vote for them because they are women do you? Vote for me, i have breasts so i automatically know what every other person with breasts wants.

Thats as ludicrous as someone saying i have black skin, therefore i am the best candidate to represent other people with black skin.

Here in Scotland, black people make up something ludicrous like 0.2% (i think) of the population - so by your rationale, there will never be a black MSP because why would anyone white vote for a black person, because obviously black people can only represent black people, so the reverse must be true.

Makes you wonder why the USA has a black president doesnt it? Or does that show tha white people can see past the colour of skin and vote for someone based on there credentials, whereas black people can only vote for black people?

You've made a lot of wild assumptions in that post, none of them, in my opinion, accurate. You also don't appear to have grasped my post if you think my 'rationale' is that blacks can only vote for blacks and vice versa. Candidates should be broadly representative of their constituents-its quite a simple, and almost universally agreed, rationale.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You've made a lot of wild assumptions in that post, none of them, in my opinion, accurate. You also don't appear to have grasped my post if you think my 'rationale' is that blacks can only vote for blacks and vice versa. Candidates should be broadly representative of their constituents-its quite a simple, and almost universally agreed, rationale.

I get what youre saying mate, i am playing devils adovcate to an extent...

But, if she is standing to be leader of the lab party and so have a good chance of being PM of the UK, and if you say that people should be broadly representative of who they represent, then it does stand to reason that A) She shouldnt be leader of the lab party as she does not represent the majority of lab members or voters, and B) She definitely does not represent the majority of people in the UK.

[ballengeich]

I can't understand the analogy.

The Pope is the head of the Catholic church. That's a religion for people who choose to be Catholics.

Why would someone who wasn't a Catholic aspire to be the head of that religion?

As far as I'm aware, the royal family isn't a religion.

To some extent my post was tongue in cheek, but the UK monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, so the individual would be expected to be a member of that institution.

I accept that the head of the Catholic church will be someone of that faith, but why is the Vatican a state rather than just the centre of a religion? Can a female become head of the Catholic Church?

[Dashing Bob S]

I dont agree - she is presenting herself as a 'black' candidate - not a black woman. Im sure women are underrepresented in parliament, but you dont see women campaigning that other women should vote for them because they are women do you? Vote for me, i have breasts so i automatically know what every other person with breasts wants.

Thats as ludicrous as someone saying i have black skin, therefore i am the best candidate to represent other people with black skin.

Here in Scotland, black people make up something ludicrous like 0.2% (i think) of the population - so by your rationale, there will never be a black MSP because why would anyone white vote for a black person, because obviously black people can only represent black people, so the reverse must be true.

Makes you wonder why the USA has a black president doesnt it? Or does that show tha white people can see past the colour of skin and vote for someone based on there credentials, whereas black people can only vote for black people?


No, Clinton had almost the same proportion of the black vote as Obama, around 89%.

[Woody1985]

[/B]

No, Clinton had almost the same proportion of the black vote as Obama, around 89%.

But how is that reflected in actual numbers?

[John_the_angus_hibby]

So you think that all those black people who had never voted before did so on this occasion because Obama held the same views as them on foreign policy, healthcare, economy etc etc. Bull****.

No, as I said they projected their views on to him because they believed they were the same. Please read the post again.

[Woody1985]

No, as I said they projected their views on to him because they believed they were the same. read the post. :greengrin

I did read it.


I agree with your sentiment; but you/we align yourself with those of similar views. And views, etc are set by experience, environment, education...etc. A lot of black people voted for Obama because they projected their views onto the candidate that they believed matched their own.


So you're saying they voted for him because he's black?

Because surely his political views will be determined by his education and upbringing which I'm guessing isn't similar to your average man, regardless of skin colour.

[Dashing Bob S]

But how is that reflected in actual numbers?

Not sure to be honest, though on the basis that blacks are 12% of the US population and the general turnout was much higher under Obama than with any other election in living memory, the total number of blacks voting for Obama undoubtedly exceeded the number of those voting for Clinton.

That might even have been the same case with the white vote, but that's pure speculation on my part.

[Dinkydoo]

Subjective individual experience + generally = incompatible

You've had unfortunate experiences during your life which naturally left you feeling emotional, but you can't paint a whole demographic with the same brush. It's the old Muslim/ Terrorist; football fan/hooligan; student/scrounger argument.

You're complaining about racism against anything and everything which is quite right, but rather than castigate both whites and blacks, we have to look at the reason why this sort of thing happens.

Reason: we live in one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. The gap between rich and poor is growing. This creates conflict and crime, the poor will try everything in their power to get what a capitalist society deems important (ipod, T.V, computer). Ethnic minorities, such as blacks, are also more likely to be part of the poor, so Abbot's comments becomes more about the the enduring nature of class rather than superficial racism.

What she is trying to say is, "I'm black (poor and discriminated against), I'm not your generic white male from Oxbridge with a silver spoon shoved where the sun don't shine. I lived your kind of life (poor), I understand firsthand the difficulties you face and are therefore the best candidate to represent you."

She's basically trying to stir the contentious question: whether a rich white male (the sort that dominates Parliament) can really make informed decisions about people on benefits etc? Do they really understand the ramification their decisions will have on the poor? Do we need people from different backgrounds (race, wealth, religion) in Parliament for our system to be democratic?

As long as rich white men dominate, we'll get the 'OMG I'm a black/Asian/women/working class/...' Like it or not, these groups are not represented fairly.

Compare the backgrounds of Miliband, Cameron and Clegg. Any real alternatives?

So to answer the title of the thread, no, it is not acceptable at this moment. Why? Because the majority of Parliament is white. We are represented more than fairly, others not so much.


I agree with pretty much everything you've said apart from the bit in bold.

Are you saying that if a particular race of people are under represented in parliment that then it would be OK to vote for them based on the colour of thier skin, or for them to try and capture more votes by playing the 'race card'.

If so, I disagree, that is using your skin colour to gain an unfair advantage; a bit borderline racist if you ask me.

[John_the_angus_hibby]

I did read it.



So you're saying they voted for him because he's black?

Because surely his political views will be determined by his education and upbringing which I'm guessing isn't similar to your average man, regardless of skin colour.

Since I am neither black nor American I can only postulate. However, African-Americans do not feel particularly respresented at Presidential level: Fact. Some will have voted due to being dyed in wool democrats, some because of various policy positions. However, the significant coverage demonstrated a large 'get the vote out' campaign based on getting young black americans into the voting booth for the first time. Yes, a significant % would have voted for Obama because of his colour. Or rather, the perceived experiences and hinterland that a black presidential candidate would have. A significant % of the black vote, and liberal classes voted partly (or at least were more enthused) because of what his candidature represented in American and African American history.

I think I agree with your general jist, but to argue that some (some...I do not know the % and I am not making sweeping statements) people did not vote for Obama because of his race would be ludicrious. Almost as ludicrious as not voting for him for the same reason alone.

I am unsure about your last comment. Race DOES effect your experience and therefore your views. I wish it were not so, but it does. I am not saying that there is a genetic influence here (that is very dodgy and dark ground) in case that is what you are getting at; but how a certain demographic can effect your environment and hence your experiences and hence your views, beliefs, etc.

And an apology for assuming you did not read my post.

[Big Ed]

So you think that all those black people who had never voted before did so on this occasion because Obama held the same views as them on foreign policy, healthcare, economy etc etc. Bull****.

I suspect that many black people who voted for Obama did so because they thought that he would be able to use the position of President of the United States to help the plight of the blacks there.
I'd call that naive rather than racist.
I recall hearing women on TV in the seventies saying that they'd vote for Thatcher because she was a woman.
As for Diane Abbot; the adjective that I'd use to describe her certainly rhymes with white.