The future of the Labour Party

[Stairway 2 7]

I think Starmer’s offer to the public is dull managerial competence. He doesn’t want to offer much difference from the Tories in case it costs him votes. He won’t be nearly as bad as the Tories and hopefully he wins but it’s not going to be massive change either. It’s just muddling along best we can. And that’s enough for lots of people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think him and Sunak are both going for the dull and safe vote, probably due to coming in after polarising leader's

[Ozyhibby]

I think him and Sunak are both going for the dull and safe vote, probably due to coming in after polarising leader's

I agree. I’m not convinced yet that Starmer beats him at this. There is still 18 months before the GE. Sunak is going to present him self as the safe pair of hands who got rid of inflation and is now ready for tax cuts. Starmer is offering ….?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I agree. I’m not convinced yet that Starmer beats him at this. There is still 18 months before the GE. Sunak is going to present him self as the safe pair of hands who got rid of inflation and is now ready for tax cuts. Starmer is offering ….?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tax cuts will definitely come in next years budget and sadly most like paying less tax. I think he's bet too much on immigration and boats, if the numbers are still big next year one of his main points comes back to hurt him

[Hibrandenburg]

Listen. I get it - you hate Labour. You would rather have a Tory government. I get it.

All this pish about you're either with us or a Tory is pretty poor imo. It is possible to dislike both the Tories and this current manifestation of the Labour Party. It's just a rehash of the old "you're either with us or against us" rubbish.

[archie]

All this pish about you're either with us or a Tory is pretty poor imo. It is possible to dislike both the Tories and this current manifestation of the Labour Party. It's just a rehash of the old "you're either with us or against us" rubbish.

You might benefit from reading the exchanges.

[Hibrandenburg]

You might benefit from reading the exchanges.

I've read them and how you come to the conclusion that someone is supporting the Tories because they dislike Labour is weird. It's the same kind of flawed logic that another poster was trolling with a few days ago.

[archie]

I've read them and how you come to the conclusion that someone is supporting the Tories because they dislike Labour is weird. It's the same kind of flawed logic that another poster was trolling with a few days ago.

Well it was this that I thought was odd 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' This was in relation to Labour winning the general election. How would you interpret that?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I've read them and how you come to the conclusion that someone is supporting the Tories because they dislike Labour is weird. It's the same kind of flawed logic that another poster was trolling with a few days ago.

It's unfortunately the polarisation of modern politics. Quite like "if you don't support Celtic you must support Rangers". There's no reason why there can't be disdain for both. Although I wouldn't say I dislike Labour, at least, not Labour as Labour. What i'm disliking isn't what I would consider to be Labour.


Well it was this that I thought was odd 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' This was in relation to Labour winning the general election. How would you interpret that?

I've already explained to you what I meant. I see things being bleak regardless of which joint agenda party is running things in 2024.

[archie]

It's unfortunately the polarisation of modern politics. Quite like "if you don't support Celtic you must support Rangers". There's no reason why there can't be disdain for both. Although I wouldn't say I dislike Labour, at least, not Labour as Labour. What i'm disliking isn't what I would consider to be Labour.



I've already explained to you what I meant. I see things being bleak regardless of which joint agenda party is running things in 2024.
To be fair, you sort of tried to walk it back. What is a 'joint agenda party'?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

To be fair, you sort of tried to walk it back. What is a 'joint agenda party'?

I wasn't walking anything back. It has consistently been my stance that neither party will ultimately serve the UK well. Not a 'joint agenda party', but parties with joint agendas. Including, but not limited to, further austerity measures, an increasing phobia towards migrants and a continuation of "filter down economics", while the wedge between the haves and have nots continues to widen further. Not to mention the commitment towards "making brexit work".

[archie]

I wasn't walking anything back. It has consistently been my stance that neither party will ultimately serve the UK well. Not a 'joint agenda party', but parties with joint agendas. Including, but not limited to, further austerity measures, an increasing phobia towards migrants and a continuation of "filter down economics", while the wedge between the haves and have nots continues to widen further. Not to mention the commitment towards "making brexit work".
So the Tories and Labour are the same?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

So the Tories and Labour are the same?

Well put it this way. It's like choosing between a rotten raw egg and a rotten raw piece of chicken. Technically they're different. But you're going to get salmonella poisoning regardless of which one you choose.

[Hibrandenburg]

Well it was this that I thought was odd 'If we think things have been bleak under the tories since 2010, we haven't seen anything yet.' This was in relation to Labour winning the general election. How would you interpret that?

I might be biased because I think he's right. We've lost the weighs and balance of an opposition party to the Tories and it feels like both parties are trying to out do each other by following the lead of public opinion instead of showing leadership and an alternative to populism. If both Labour and the Tories continue to bank on winning votes from the lowest denominator, then things will only get worse.

[archie]

I might be biased because I think he's right. We've lost the weighs and balance of an opposition party to the Tories and it feels like both parties are trying to out do each other by following the lead of public opinion instead of showing leadership and an alternative to populism. If both Labour and the Tories continue to bank on winning votes from the lowest denominator, then things will only get worse.

I don't agree that a Labour government would be the same as a Tory government. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I suspect the original posters motivation is fear that SNP voters might move to Labour. There's a lengthy history of posts as to apparently how truly awful Labour are. There's also a very generous interpretation of issues related to the SNP

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I don't agree that a Labour government would be the same as a Tory government.

Neither do I. But there isn't a Labour Government on offer, that's the problem.

[archie]

Neither do I. But there isn't a Labour Government on offer, that's the problem.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Kato]

A Labour win sees them helluva hamstrung to even attempt getting back to 2010 levels. The public purse has been rinsed and we now owe eye-watering amounts in debt. Little wiggle room for expansion of trade. Held hostage to pre-fabricated culture wars. Energy prices likely to do what they always do and stay static once inflation recedes and a nasty war in Europe which the Torys' "friends" have instigated. Meanwhile the churn of money upwards via the magic banks will carry on silently in the background as it did with Brown and Blair.

Not much room for milk and honey or even a bit of either.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'd like to know why you disagree. What have you heard from Keir Starmer that has you confident that he's going to deliver the changes that are required?

[archie]

I'd like to know why you disagree. What have you heard from Keir Starmer that has you confident that he's going to deliver the changes that are required?

Rather than post the 5 missions document that Labour produced I've posted an assessment by the Institute of Government. The assessment is not uncritical and more detail has to emerge. I like the focus, breadth of ambition, the emphasis on outside the South East of England and addressing the needs of ordinary people. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/what-do-keir-starmers-five-missions-reveal-about-how-labour-would-govern

[Stairway 2 7]

Well put it this way. It's like choosing between a rotten raw egg and a rotten raw piece of chicken. Technically they're different. But you're going to get salmonella poisoning regardless of which one you choose.

That analogy has the same outcome, which is nonsense. A better one would be getting leathered in the baws or getting stabbed repeatedly. Only someone with very little knowledge of politics would say Labour and the Tories are the same.

I understand it from some SNP supporters as they think it helps them. I'd say most in the real world know its a nonsense though

[Hibrandenburg]

That analogy has the same outcome, which is nonsense. A better one would be getting leathered in the baws or getting stabbed repeatedly. Only someone with very little knowledge of politics would say Labour and the Tories are the same.

I understand it from some SNP supporters as they think it helps them. I'd say most in the real world know its a nonsense though

Well that's a relief, a kick in the baws from Labour is just what we need. Mind you "We'll kick you in the baws" is going to be a hard sell to an electorate that is used to getting their facts fed to them in 3 word slogans.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Rather than post the 5 missions document that Labour produced I've posted an assessment by the Institute of Government. The assessment is not uncritical and more detail has to emerge. I like the focus, breadth of ambition, the emphasis on outside the South East of England and addressing the needs of ordinary people. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/comment/what-do-keir-starmers-five-missions-reveal-about-how-labour-would-govern

The 5 missions basically read as "things we'll maybe do, but we can't promise anything". Which goes back to what I said about Keir Starmer refusing to really commit to anything. What will supporters of this iteration of the Labour Party actually be voting for? Because there doesn't appear to be any clear consensus from this party under Keir Starmer on what they're actually going to do. I'd also like to know how these missions are going to help what you refer to as "ordinary people". I see nothing in these missions about closing the inequality gap and lifting people out of poverty. Perhaps they don't fall into the category of ordinary people?

[Stairway 2 7]

Well that's a relief, a kick in the baws from Labour is just what we need. Mind you "We'll kick you in the baws" is going to be a hard sell to an electorate that is used to getting their facts fed to them in 3 word slogans.

Well I've repeatedly put actual facts rather than daft analogies. Hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and as I've said the graph of children in poverty has no relation to economic growth or inflation it is government policy only.
If public sector wages grew at the same rate as it was with labour they would be 10k better off a year, this again was a sharp systematic decline under the tories.
Sanctions on benefits claimants sky rocketed just after the tories took power after years of stagnation, labour say they will end universal creditand sanctions.
Sure start centres for support for under 5s went from 1.8 billion a year under labour to 500 million last year.
Labour will increase the top rate of tax by 5% and cancel the corporation tax cut, a huge difference to the budget.
Labour will tax non doms.
Labour want full voting rights for EU nationals and to open a route for immigration.
They will repeal the trade union act.
A windfall tax on oil and gas companies to be put towards bills.
End the Rwanda policy.

They they are too right for my liking but aren't similar remotely. Even if they only manage a fraction of it in the first term it would be a huge shift from this racist bunch

[archie]

The 5 missions basically read as "things we'll maybe do, but we can't promise anything". Which goes back to what I said about Keir Starmer refusing to really commit to anything. What will supporters of this iteration of the Labour Party actually be voting for? Because there doesn't appear to be any clear consensus from this party under Keir Starmer on what they're actually going to do. I'd also like to know how these missions are going to help what you refer to as "ordinary people". I see nothing in these missions about closing the inequality gap and lifting people out of poverty. Perhaps they don't fall into the category of ordinary people?
There's probably 18m until a general election.

[Hibbyradge]

Well that's a relief, a kick in the baws from Labour is just what we need. Mind you "We'll kick you in the baws" is going to be a hard sell to an electorate that is used to getting their facts fed to them in 3 word slogans.

Baws sair tomorrow.

[ronaldo7]

Baws sair tomorrow.

Lisa Nandy's fav 3 worder is bats and baws.

File under catalonia.

[Smartie]

It's interesting that Labour seem to be able to inspire us to discuss comparing them to being stabbed repeatedly, leathered in the baws or catching salmonella but it's quite hard to imagine them being the true inspiration being behind a better Britain, however we might view that.

Are we not ripe for some sort of positive revolution rather than holding our noses and voting for someone who might be marginally less crap than the Tories?

[The Modfather]

It's interesting that Labour seem to be able to inspire us to discuss comparing them to being stabbed repeatedly, leathered in the baws or catching salmonella but it's quite hard to imagine them being the true inspiration being behind a better Britain, however we might view that.

Are we not ripe for some sort of positive revolution rather than holding our noses and voting for someone who might be marginally less crap than the Tories?

There are no genuine alternatives either side of the border. It’s voting for slightly different shades of the same thing.

It’s always baffled me why we don’t have a genuine alternative that are pragmatic and competent. Here’s the current state of play. Here’s the current issues. We can’t fix everything at once so here’s the priorities. Here’s the actions. The benefits of doing so will be x, y & z. This will allow us to then focus on the other issues doing x, y & z. We will review the initial actions each year and explain why we are remaining on track or what we need to tweak because of variables x, y & z.

More realistically, Vive La Revolution!

[Stairway 2 7]

It's interesting that Labour seem to be able to inspire us to discuss comparing them to being stabbed repeatedly, leathered in the baws or catching salmonella but it's quite hard to imagine them being the true inspiration being behind a better Britain, however we might view that.

Are we not ripe for some sort of positive revolution rather than holding our noses and voting for someone who might be marginally less crap than the Tories?

I put about 10 things that make them a world away from the tories. They are a centrist party as are the SNP’s and all that comes with that. There's no party that would please all on here. Some would only be happy with a socialist party Corbyn has been closest to that in uk mainstream politics in the last 30 years. He was miles to the left of the SNP but was also slated on here as unelectable.

[archie]

It's interesting that Labour seem to be able to inspire us to discuss comparing them to being stabbed repeatedly, leathered in the baws or catching salmonella but it's quite hard to imagine them being the true inspiration being behind a better Britain, however we might view that.

Are we not ripe for some sort of positive revolution rather than holding our noses and voting for someone who might be marginally less crap than the Tories?

A lot of that comes from people who really don't want Labour to win, for a range of reasons. What would you envisage a 'positive revolution ' looking like? Tony Blair, class war now?

[Smartie]

A lot of that comes from people who really don't want Labour to win, for a range of reasons. What would you envisage a 'positive revolution ' looking like? Tony Blair, class war now?

Tony Blair is probably a decent example. It was possibly the only time in my life time that there seemed to be an air of optimism and a feeling that change might be on the way. Whether or not he delivered on that is a debate for a different place, but I think we need someone who is going to make a case for change and optimism the way he did.

Like it or not, the SNP and independence has given a lot of people hope, or a belief that they might buy into something different.

I just don't really get the feeling that Labour right now are doing a great deal to enthuse even their own folk.

If you exclude the Tories for a minute as they might disagree - there is a fairly widespread acknowledgment of "brokenness" and Labour should always being in the driving seat when it comes to "fixing". You clearly disagree and are happy with them, but I just don't really see that they are grasping the initiative, driving the desire for change and stating what they're going to do about it.

Send the small boats back, probably.

[Hibbyradge]

Tony Blair is probably a decent example. It was possibly the only time in my life time that there seemed to be an air of optimism and a feeling that change might be on the way. Whether or not he delivered on that is a debate for a different place, but I think we need someone who is going to make a case for change and optimism the way he did.

Like it or not, the SNP and independence has given a lot of people hope, or a belief that they might buy into something different.

I just don't really get the feeling that Labour right now are doing a great deal to enthuse even their own folk.

If you exclude the Tories for a minute as they might disagree - there is a fairly widespread acknowledgment of "brokenness" and Labour should always being in the driving seat when it comes to "fixing". You clearly disagree and are happy with them, but I just don't really see that they are grasping the initiative, driving the desire for change and stating what they're going to do about it.

Send the small boats back, probably.

I agree with a lot of that post although the last sentence let's it down.

However, Labour are comfortably ahead in the polls and the next GE isn't scheduled until January 25.

Committing to ambitious policies now would just give the Tories more time to rubbish them in the media and folk like HighOnHibs would just say that Labour won't carry them out.

Labour are trying to recover from the worst election result in its history. It really has to be a case of slowly slowly catchy monkey.

The Tories have been doing all the heavy lifting for Labour up till now, and, unfortunately for Scotland, it seems the SNP are joining in the self harm fest.

The time will come for Labour to reveal its hand and, when it does, I fully expect policies which will capture the imagination and take the initiative.

[hibsbollah]

I agree with a lot of that post although the last sentence let's it down.

However, Labour are comfortably ahead in the polls and the next GE isn't scheduled until January 25.

Committing to ambitious policies now would just give the Tories more time to rubbish them in the media and folk like HighOnHibs would just say that Labour won't carry them out.

Labour are trying to recover from the worst election result in its history. It really has to be a case of slowly slowly catchy monkey.

The Tories have been doing all the heavy lifting for Labour up till now, and, unfortunately for Scotland, it seems the SNP are joining in the self harm fest.

The time will come for Labour to reveal its hand and, when it does, I fully expect policies which will capture the imagination and take the initiative.

Let’s not let the ‘worst election result in history’ go unchallenged for once. I don’t blame you one bit because it’s just been accepted as unchallengeable fact across all media :greengrin

Now, I’m not for one moment suggesting 2019 was anything but a disaster for Labour. But.

If we measure by number of seats, that’s the worst part of the performance. Number of seats so was the lowest since 1935. So even by that measurement, it’s not the worst performance EVER.

If we measure by % of votes cast, 32% was actually better than Miliband in 2015, Gordon Brown in 2010 and was comparable with Blair’s 35% share in 2005. And that’s just this millenium! Labour had lower support on many other occasions in the 20th century.

And if we measure by Loss of Seats since the previous election, again losing 59 seats was a terrible result but eclipsed by Browns 2010 loss of 91 seats and very similar to Blair’s third term slump of 48 seats.

So a very bad result? Yes. The Worst Result Ever for Labour? Not even close if you measure by votes cast or seats lost. And even by Seats Won (which in itself fails to take into account the key factor here, the high turnout and the large numbers of ex UKIP voters voting FOR the Tories FOR Brexit and actively AGAINST the actively socialist Labour party) it’s not the worst ever.

Just the worst in almost 80 years :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Let’s not let the ‘worst election result in history’ go unchallenged for once. I don’t blame you one bit because it’s just been accepted as unchallengeable fact across all media :greengrin

Now, I’m not for one moment suggesting 2019 was anything but a disaster for Labour. But.

If we measure by number of seats, that’s the worst part of the performance. Number of seats so was the lowest since 1935. So even by that measurement, it’s not the worst performance EVER.

If we measure by % of votes cast, 32% was actually better than Miliband in 2015, Gordon Brown in 2010 and was comparable with Blair’s 35% share in 2005. And that’s just this millenium! Labour had lower support on many other occasions in the 20th century.

And if we measure by Loss of Seats since the previous election, again losing 59 seats was a terrible result but eclipsed by Browns 2010 loss of 91 seats and very similar to Blair’s third term slump of 48 seats.

So a very bad result? Yes. The Worst Result Ever for Labour? Not even close if you measure by votes cast or seats lost. And even by Seats Won (which in itself fails to take into account the key factor here, the high turnout and the large numbers of ex UKIP voters voting FOR the Tories FOR Brexit and actively AGAINST the actively socialist Labour party) it’s not the worst ever.

Just the worst in almost 80 years :greengrin

That's such a relief! :wink:

[hibsbollah]

That's such a relief! :wink:

:faf:
I’m glad you can take it in the spirit it was intended. You do make some good points of course.

[Hibrandenburg]

Baws sair tomorrow.

I'm sold.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm sold.

:greengrin

[archie]

Let’s not let the ‘worst election result in history’ go unchallenged for once. I don’t blame you one bit because it’s just been accepted as unchallengeable fact across all media :greengrin

Now, I’m not for one moment suggesting 2019 was anything but a disaster for Labour. But.

If we measure by number of seats, that’s the worst part of the performance. Number of seats so was the lowest since 1935. So even by that measurement, it’s not the worst performance EVER.

If we measure by % of votes cast, 32% was actually better than Miliband in 2015, Gordon Brown in 2010 and was comparable with Blair’s 35% share in 2005. And that’s just this millenium! Labour had lower support on many other occasions in the 20th century.

And if we measure by Loss of Seats since the previous election, again losing 59 seats was a terrible result but eclipsed by Browns 2010 loss of 91 seats and very similar to Blair’s third term slump of 48 seats.

So a very bad result? Yes. The Worst Result Ever for Labour? Not even close if you measure by votes cast or seats lost. And even by Seats Won (which in itself fails to take into account the key factor here, the high turnout and the large numbers of ex UKIP voters voting FOR the Tories FOR Brexit and actively AGAINST the actively socialist Labour party) it’s not the worst ever.

Just the worst in almost 80 years :greengrin
So 'Things can only get better '? (Sorry).

[WeeRussell]

Baws sair tomorrow.

It was the baws wot swung.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

It was the baws wot swung.

Low hanging fruit! 😲

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/14/labour-policies-philosophy-john-rawls-neoliberalism?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1681448987


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It’s always baffled me why we don’t have a genuine alternative that are pragmatic and competent.

Because whenever a genuine alternative comes along that is competent, the media machine kicks in and does everything it can to convince you that the alternative are not competent. It's neo-liberal capitalism above all else and they'll do everything to protect it, regardless of the ever worsening damage it causes.

People are talking of economic recovery. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there was yet another crash before the recovery can barely begin. They are becoming ever more frequent under this system and it's the same winners and losers every single time it does.

[Ozyhibby]

Because whenever a genuine alternative comes along that is competent, the media machine kicks in and does everything it can to convince you that the alternative are not competent. It's neo-liberal capitalism above all else and they'll do everything to protect it, regardless of the ever worsening damage it causes.

People are talking of economic recovery. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if there was yet another crash before the recovery can barely begin. They are becoming ever more frequent under this system and it's the same winners and losers every single time it does.

I think we are heading towards another banking crash soon. Still, lessons will be learned and all that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I think we are heading towards another banking crash soon. Still, lessons will be learned and all that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. Lessons on how they can maximise their corporate profits even further while telling their overworked and underpaid workers to pull their boot straps up even further.

[Stairway 2 7]

Labour say they will insulate 18 million homes, James whale said it was better in the good old days 😆


Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
My Labour government will insulate 19 million homes, cutting energy bills by up to £500 for families on average.

A vote for Labour on Thursday 4 May is a vote to cut the cost of living

@THEJamesWhale
·
Apr 14
When I was a kid, everybody had condensation and even ice on the inside of their windows, we didn’t have central heating. We mopped it up and carried on.

[Pretty Boy]

Labour say they will insulate 18 million homes, James whale said it was better in the good old days 😆


Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
My Labour government will insulate 19 million homes, cutting energy bills by up to £500 for families on average.

A vote for Labour on Thursday 4 May is a vote to cut the cost of living

@THEJamesWhale
·
Apr 14
When I was a kid, everybody had condensation and even ice on the inside of their windows, we didn’t have central heating. We mopped it up and carried on.

I never understand people who recall stuff like that from their youth and want to inflict it on future generations.

They say it 'never did me any harm' but it clearly left them as very bitter and damaged people.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/14/labour-policies-philosophy-john-rawls-neoliberalism?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1681448987


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good to see Rawls being cited, it's hard to have a discussion about societal values in the present day without at least a little reference to him :greengrin. If there is one criticism I woud make (and it's not really his fault), it's that his work has been co-opted into promoting the very Western canon of thought on liberal democracy, which can be exceptionalist. There is a second criticism which is his fault, that he takes a position that is too focused on the self, the individual and their primacy over community but I've never been 100% convinced that's what he meant

I think I would suggest that Labour as a governing party recognised the concept of 'original position' and the 'veil of ignorance',even before Rawls wrote about them. Most main parties have a certain cadre of intellectuals. And for what I would term 'electable Labour' the intellectuals have always grappled with how to marry ****ian ethics with a society and economy that became industrialised and capitalised, then globalised. And that was demonstrated in a lot of the legislation under Wilson/Callaghan, and then Blair/Brown that focused on outlawing discrimination, equality of pay, supporting the decriminaliang of abortion etc etc.

For me, there are a number of philosophers and thinkers who have contributed both to Labour and more widely, who I think still remain relevant, or become freshly relevant, or can be adapted easily for these times. R.H. Tawney is one (and I know there was a degree of flirtation with him by Blairites and Brownites in the New Labour days), Amitai Etzioni and his work on communitarianism and, especially for me, Gutierrez and his developlment of liberation theology.

EDIT: I see mentioning ****ian ethics fell foul of the filter. I'm assuming not due to a fundamental disafgreement on philosophical grounds. For the avoidance of doubt I am referring to the German philosopher Immanuel (second name starts with K and rhymes with pant) :greengrin

[McD]

I never understand people who recall stuff like that from their youth and want to inflict it on future generations.

They say it 'never did me any harm' but it clearly left them as very bitter and damaged people.


:agree:

in these conversations, I usually point out that there never used to be seatbelts or airbags in cars and folk managed ok, it doesn’t mean that it’s not sensible to improve things for current and future generations though

[ronaldo7]

Angela Rayner at the STUC today will say...

Zero-hour contracts in Scotland have doubled in Scotland in the past decade, and they pledge to scrap them.

If only Labour in Scotland(overseen by London labour) had not blocked the devolution of employment law during the smith commission, they'd already have been banned.


Late to the party again.

[hibsbollah]

Labour really need to commit to scrapping the new voter ID requirements, it’s bizarre they haven’t. It’s anti democratic, will result in hundreds of thousands of largely progressive voters disqualified from voting and has no mandate. You don’t need to wait for an independent review to tell you these things. I have to admit to forgetting Ed Davey and his party actually existed but he nailed it earlier…

Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, told Sky News this morning that the government’s decision to people to provide photo ID when they vote was “very suspicous”.

The rule, which will cover everyone in UK general elections, will also apply for local elections in England, and will apply for the first time in the council elections next month. The plan is hugely controversial because evidence suggests it will disadvantage people least likely to vote Conservative.

Davey told Sky News:

The government has failed to make the case. They claim it was about voter fraud. There is no evidence about this at all and it will make it harder for some people to vote.
When you look at the sort of things they have done in implementing this, they’ve made it OK for retired people to use their bus passes – that’s great, I think that’s right – [as] photo ID for older people if we were to have this awful system. But they have not allowed young people to use their bus passes as photo ID.
That is very suspicious and I think it suggests the government’s motives behind this change are nothing to do with voter fraud; they are everything to do with the selfish interests of the Conservative party.


On Friday last week a reader asked if Labour is committed to repealing this law if it wins the election. By the time I got an answer, my blog had closed, but I was eventually told the party has not explicitly made that promise. “Obviously we have always opposed the government’s unnecessary and expensive voter ID laws, and we will await the independent review of the impact of it in this May’s local elections,” a source said.

[grunt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuBF7npWIAgfVvo?format=jpg&name=mediumhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuBF7npWIAgfVvo?format=jpg&name=mediumhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuBF7npWIAgfVvo?format=jpg&name=medium

[ronaldo7]

Labour front bencher, Peter Kyle references the FM as Mohammed Yousaf, as he tells Scotland what they need.

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/Frcola1/status/1648628057169592325?s=20


"Mohammed Yousaf"

[grunt]

Labour front bencher, Peter Kyle references the FM as Mohammed Yousaf, as he tells Scotland what they need.
Beat me to it!

[ronaldo7]

Beat me to it!

The arrogance and contempt is not far from the Labour front bench.

[Santa Cruz]

The arrogance and contempt is not far from the Labour front bench.

Did the FM not call Keir Starmer, Keir Sarwar yesterday? Is that arrogant or was it just an unintentional mistake?

[ronaldo7]

Did the FM not call Keir Starmer, Keir Sarwar yesterday? Is that arrogant or was it just an unintentional mistake?

I watched it. It was clearly a mis speak. Mr Kyle was showing another side of himself.

[archie]

I watched it. It was clearly a mis speak. Mr Kyle was showing another side of himself.

I see!

[ronaldo7]

I see!

Good.👍

[Ozyhibby]

I watched it. It was clearly a mis speak. Mr Kyle was showing another side of himself.

He had a few of those yesterday Yousaf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

He had a few of those yesterday Yousaf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As did Mr Kyle today when referring to Scotland as Northern Ireland. It happens, but Mohammed Yousaf, clearly the guy didn't know what he was talking about.

[archie]

Good.👍

It's remarkable the ability to excoriate Labour and the Tories for any failing while finding deep reserves of understanding for the SNP!

[Ozyhibby]

It's remarkable the ability to excoriate Labour and the Tories for any failing while finding deep reserves of understanding for the SNP!

And you in reverse.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

It's remarkable the ability to excoriate Labour and the Tories for any failing while finding deep reserves of understanding for the SNP!

Evidence? 😁

[archie]

Evidence? 😁

Read the thread.

[ronaldo7]

Read the thread.

😂👍

[hibsbollah]

The Sunak attack line on Starmer ‘Sir Softy’ is being echoed today by the Daily Mail. It’s an embarrassing field to be fighting crime policy on and it will probably continue until next year, while doing real tangible policy measures will be nowhere to be seen.

[ronaldo7]

The Sunak attack line on Starmer ‘Sir Softy’ is being echoed today by the Daily Mail. It’s an embarrassing field to be fighting crime policy on and it will probably continue until next year, while doing real tangible policy measures will be nowhere to be seen.

I thought Starmer was a bit soft at PMQs yesterday when he went on crime, and decided to read out plaudits to himself from when he was at the DPP.

Not a good look, Rodney.

[hibsbollah]

I thought Starmer was a bit soft at PMQs yesterday when he went on crime, and decided to read out plaudits to himself from when he was at the DPP.

Not a good look, Rodney.

Just reading Crace, who had the same take as me (but with a lot more eloquence)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/19/rishi-sunak-sir-softy-pmqs

[Stairway 2 7]

The Sunak attack line on Starmer ‘Sir Softy’ is being echoed today by the Daily Mail. It’s an embarrassing field to be fighting crime policy on and it will probably continue until next year, while doing real tangible policy measures will be nowhere to be seen.

Just a pish slagging that you would expect from a private schoolboy or a 7 year old. Lefty lawyer is also hopeless. A mild, striking worker abandoning **** would be better

[Smartie]

I quite enjoyed Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart talking about a few of these subjects on one of last week's "the rest is politics" podcasts - the "Starmer's most controversial move yet" one I think it was.

Worth a listen.

[ronaldo7]

Just reading Crace, who had the same take as me (but with a lot more eloquence)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/19/rishi-sunak-sir-softy-pmqs

Have you seen this one?

I've only listened to the first episode and it's excruciating. As I've been saying, Starmer and his Mandelson men (The Establishment B Team) will do anything for power, including corruption and lies.

https://thecorbynproject.com/news/the-labour-files-wins-current-affairs-gold-award-at-new-york-tv-film-festival/

The film, 'Al Jazeera Investigations: The Labour Files - The Hierarchy' won the Gold prize in the Current Affairs category.
April 19, 2023

The documentary, which was part of The Labour Files series, uncovered how Keir Starmer's Labour Party had created a hierarchy of racism that discriminated against its Black, Asian and Muslim members.

Featuring interviews, internal documents and social media messages shared by the most senior staff in the Labour Party that demonstrated a racist culture where abuse was aimed at their own colleagues, councillors and political leaders, the film also exposed how Keir Starmer's campaign to present a tough image on antisemitism, whilst ignoring other forms of discrimination and factional abuse, drove many staff to resign and lead to the expulsion of Jewish members from the party.

The Peace & Justice Project congratulates Al Jazeera Investigations for their incredible achievement in creating this vital series of films and for their win at the New York TV & Film Festival.

[Hiber-nation]

Just reading Crace, who had the same take as me (but with a lot more eloquence)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/19/rishi-sunak-sir-softy-pmqs

It was the worst PMQs ever. Pitiful.

Just been chatting with my Labour supporting ex colleague. He said he won't vote for them under Starmer and he was no fan of Corbyn. Lots of very unhappy Labour voters around these parts at Sir Keir's full on red wall assault.

[Ozyhibby]

It was the worst PMQs ever. Pitiful.

Just been chatting with my Labour supporting ex colleague. He said he won't vote for them under Starmer and he was no fan of Corbyn. Lots of very unhappy Labour voters around these parts at Sir Keir's full on red wall assault.

I was amazed he didn’t ask about food price inflation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Just reading Crace, who had the same take as me (but with a lot more eloquence)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/19/rishi-sunak-sir-softy-pmqs

o/t but he's spot on here. Hoyle is rubbish. Bercow may have been all MeMeMe! but at least he kept some order.


What followed was nothing short of a shambles. The speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, showed that he is unable to maintain order. An ineffectual headteacher who has lost control of his school. Continually making threats on which he never delivers. And everyone knows he won’t, so they just ignore him. Shouting and jeering.

[Smartie]

o/t but he's spot on here. Hoyle is rubbish. Bercow may have been all MeMeMe! but at least he kept some order.

I thought Bercow was excellent.

In that it's a creaking edifice that's not been fit for purpose for decades (centuries?) but he managed to just about keep it functional.

[ronaldo7]

Just reading Crace, who had the same take as me (but with a lot more eloquence)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/19/rishi-sunak-sir-softy-pmqs

The punch and judy show yesterday was rather boring. Today at least we got some adult questioning and responses at FMQ's.

[Ozyhibby]

The punch and judy show yesterday was rather boring. Today at least we got some adult questioning and responses at FMQ's.

Didn’t catch it so no idea how it went but just saw a clip of a Fergus Ewing calling the Greens ‘wine bar revolutionaries’. That’s a great line. And it’s likely to stick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

Have you seen this one?

I've only listened to the first episode and it's excruciating. As I've been saying, Starmer and his Mandelson men (The Establishment B Team) will do anything for power, including corruption and lies.

https://thecorbynproject.com/news/the-labour-files-wins-current-affairs-gold-award-at-new-york-tv-film-festival/

The film, 'Al Jazeera Investigations: The Labour Files - The Hierarchy' won the Gold prize in the Current Affairs category.
April 19, 2023

The documentary, which was part of The Labour Files series, uncovered how Keir Starmer's Labour Party had created a hierarchy of racism that discriminated against its Black, Asian and Muslim members.

Featuring interviews, internal documents and social media messages shared by the most senior staff in the Labour Party that demonstrated a racist culture where abuse was aimed at their own colleagues, councillors and political leaders, the film also exposed how Keir Starmer's campaign to present a tough image on antisemitism, whilst ignoring other forms of discrimination and factional abuse, drove many staff to resign and lead to the expulsion of Jewish members from the party.

The Peace & Justice Project congratulates Al Jazeera Investigations for their incredible achievement in creating this vital series of films and for their win at the New York TV & Film Festival.

I watched the first one, I’ll try to make time but im fast losing interest. Try typing ‘the Labour files’ ‘Al Jazeera’ ‘Corbyn’ or ‘Labour racism’ in a Guardian or BBC search engine, and you’ll realise that this story isn’t really going to get any traction in even the most left leaning U.K. media. You may as well hope to get some coverage of the Forde Report findings. If it did get traction, you’d get unpleasant attacks and insinuations because the source is Al-J.

Does a tree that falls in a forest make any noise if no one is there to hear it and tweet about it? Probably not.

[ronaldo7]

I watched the first one, I’ll try to make time but im fast losing interest. Try typing ‘the Labour files’ ‘Al Jazeera’ ‘Corbyn’ or ‘Labour racism’ in a Guardian or BBC search engine, and you’ll realise that this story isn’t really going to get any traction in even the most left leaning U.K. media. You may as well hope to get some coverage of the Forde Report findings. If it did get traction, you’d get unpleasant attacks and insinuations because the source is Al-J.

Does a tree that falls in a forest make any noise if no one is there to hear it and tweet about it? Probably not.

The second one covers anti semitism in the party and theirs a rather strange whiff around the payoffs sanctioned by starmer, as he goes against the legal advice given. Several hundred thousand pounds given away to a ex party colleagues.

I'm looking forward to the third one, as that's the one they won the gold award with.

[ronaldo7]

Didn’t catch it so no idea how it went but just saw a clip of a Fergus Ewing calling the Greens ‘wine bar revolutionaries’. That’s a great line. And it’s likely to stick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was very respectful today.

Fergus will be hanging his fishing hooks up soon enough. 😆

[Ozyhibby]

It was very respectful today.

Fergus will be hanging his fishing hooks up soon enough. [emoji38]

https://twitter.com/bbcphilipsim/status/1649019542243356674?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

I suspect it’s the only clip that makes the news.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

The Labour files. Opens your eyes on how the Starmer years have started. Racism is rife according to party members.


https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=labour+files&mid=6E04CBAC02E16E37B9AF6E04CBAC02E16E37B9AF

[ronaldo7]

Pamela Nash previously came under criticism for urging Scottish voters to vote tactically for the Tories during last year’s local council elections.

Now standing for Labour in the next general election.

Fag papers spring to mind.

[degenerated]

Pamela Nash previously came under criticism for urging Scottish voters to vote tactically for the Tories during last year’s local council elections.

Now standing for Labour in the next general election.

Fag papers spring to mind.Pamela Nash from right wing fruit loops Scotland in union.

Scotland in union with its activist's such as Max Dunbar previously of BNP and National Front and a shady campaign manager Andrew Skinner, who if I recall correcty used to run an EDL worship group called British Unity. Most of the traces of it have gone now though what's left of the twitter account still remains.26677

[Ozyhibby]

Pamela Nash from right wing fruit loops Scotland in union.

Scotland in union with its activist's such as Max Dunbar previously of BNP and National Front and a shady campaign manager Andrew Skinner, who if I recall correcty used to run an EDL worship group called British Unity. Most of the traces of it have gone now though what's left of the twitter account still remains.26677

British nationalists right enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[He's here!]

Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP after racism letter - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978)

She's been a liability for years now.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP after racism letter - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978)

She's been a liability for years now.

If by liability, you mean stating things that are historically accurate.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP after racism letter - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978)

She's been a liability for years now.



Not the cleverest article to write. Blaming editing and whether it is or isn't a draft copy just digs a deeper hole. The content reminds me of when Sir Jackie Stewart said that Formula One did not have a problem with racism. A new MP might make the same mistake from newbie niaviety, but not a long term seasoned protest politician who surely did or was advised about some scenario planning. No article goes into a broadsheet to fill column space.

[Northernhibee]

Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP after racism letter - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65365978)

She's been a liability for years now.
Just handed Starmer an open goal. Can show decisiveness, and get rid of another liability to his party.

[Ozyhibby]

If by liability, you mean stating things that are historically accurate.

Were Irish people not enslaved? Were Jewish people not enslaved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Were Irish people not enslaved? Were Jewish people not enslaved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course they were. But she wasn't suggesting that Irish or Jewish people have never been enslaved. She was pointing to very specific examples of when they weren't subjected to the same treatment that black people were.

I'm no fan of Dianne Abbott and I personally find her play of the racial card at every opportunity to be somewhat cringe-worthy (not that racism shouldn't be called out when necessary). But if you read her letter, there's nothing in there that can be deemed inaccurate, despite the very selective facts chosen by her.

[Paul1642]

Diane Abbott being suspended suddenly makes it a bit more tempting more me to vote Labour.

She’s been my least favourite politician for a long long time and the thought of her holding a cabinet role gives me the fear.

Like most on this form I am firmly against racism of any form and she has never done a good job of hiding her dislike for white people. It’s amazing it’s taken this long for her to be removed from the party.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Of course they were. But she wasn't suggesting that Irish or Jewish people have never been enslaved. She was pointing to very specific examples of when they weren't subjected to the same treatment that black people were.

I'm no fan of Dianne Abbott and I personally find her play of the racial card at every opportunity to be somewhat cringe-worthy (not that racism shouldn't be called out when necessary). But if you read her letter, there's nothing in there that can be deemed inaccurate, despite the very selective facts chosen by her.


But surely it boils down to how far she has advanced her cause and causes as the impacts of her actions and that doesn't look to good. It's inconceivable that she's not been street smart enough to seek counsel before committing this to publish. Had this been a dug up article as part of a conspiracy, it could hardly have played out any better. Over to Jeremy Corbyn to stand right behind her and offer up two for the price of one.

[He's here!]

If by liability, you mean stating things that are historically accurate.

'Deeply offensive and wrong' according to Labour.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

But surely it boils down to how far she has advanced her cause and causes as the impacts of her actions and that doesn't look to good. It's inconceivable that she's not been street smart enough to seek counsel before committing this to publish. Had this been a dug up article as part of a conspiracy, it could hardly have played out any better. Over to Jeremy Corbyn to stand right behind her and offer up two for the price of one.

I don't disagree. But I can't help but think that certain other members of Keir Starmer's party could get away with something like this without him batting an eye lid. In fact, Labour have a standing candidate for the next general election who joked about "having the worst tan possible for a black man" (he's white) at a black history month event. That in my opinion is considerably worse, but as one of Keir Starmer's right hand men, it's been shrugged off.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

'Deeply offensive and wrong' according to Labour.

But a white man joking about having "the worst tan possible for a black man" is seemingly not offensive or wrong in Labour's book?

[Stairway 2 7]

She pretty much compares anti semitism to redheads getting abuse. Also says no white person can compete with sitting on the back of the bus or being shackled on a slave ship. Not only is it repugnant to put a league table of atrocities, it's also omitting the people in cattle trucks going to Auschwitz and other death camps

26683

[Pretty Boy]

I can see the point she is making but the way she has put it across is exceptionally crass. Throwing redheads in is a bizarre thing to do and invites the inevitable 'is she comparing anti semitism or anti Irish xenophobia to mocking someone for their hair colour' question.

Dianne Abbott is anything but stupid but she had made her point in a very stupid way on this occasion.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I can see the point she is making but the way she has put it across is exceptionally crass. Throwing redheads in is a bizarre thing to do and invites the inevitable 'is she comparing anti semitism or anti Irish xenophobia to mocking someone for their hair colour' question.

Dianne Abbott is anything but stupid but she had made her point in a very stupid way on this occasion.

That's a fair summary.

[Jack]

I can see the point she is making but the way she has put it across is exceptionally crass. Throwing redheads in is a bizarre thing to do and invites the inevitable 'is she comparing anti semitism or anti Irish xenophobia to mocking someone for their hair colour' question.

Dianne Abbott is anything but stupid but she had made her point in a very stupid way on this occasion.

She reminds me of people I've met who stroll through school (dux), university top honours all the way through. Meet them in the pub and you wonder if they've dropped their brain in a bin on the way there!

[hibsbollah]

An absolutely bizarre and brainless intervention that can’t be condoned really.

[grunt]

Keir Starmer puts out a video message wishing everyone in England a happy St Georges day.
Contains views of Glasgow.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1650117759827869698?s=20

[Smartie]

There’s arguably an intelligent point waiting to be made that just because somebody once did something nasty / unpleasant / unacceptable / offensive to you, doesn’t mean you know what it’s like to be on the sharp end of racism.

If someone fancies having a go at making that point without being offensive and missing the intended target altogether then that would be most welcome as unfortunately this intervention hasn’t quite managed to achieve anything constructive.

[Glory Lurker]

Keir Starmer puts out a video message wishing everyone in England a happy St Georges day.
Contains views of Glasgow.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1650117759827869698?s=20

That is classic!

Mind, the doughnut reckoned he was chief prosecutor for all the UK so it's not a surprise he thinks Glasgow's in England.

[marinello59]

Keir Starmer puts out a video message wishing everyone in England a happy St Georges day.
Contains views of Glasgow.

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1650117759827869698?s=20

Can’t say I’m that bothered. For me Saints transcend bigger borders than national ones. Apart from Saint Patrick, we all become Oirish on his day. :greengrin

[heretoday]

Bit of an overreaction to Abbott's statement. It's her opinion. What happened to people debating in the Labour Party?

It's not like she had a booze up in Downing St during lockdown.

[Glory Lurker]

Can’t say I’m that bothered. For me Saints transcend bigger borders than national ones. Apart from Saint Patrick, we all become Oirish on his day. :greengrin

No to sentences 2 and 3, M59.

[marinello59]

No to sentences 2 and 3, M59.

I get you not believing in Saints but not dressing up as a leprechaun on Paddy’s day? You are missing out. :greengrin

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Bit of an overreaction to Abbott's statement. It's her opinion. What happened to people debating in the Labour Party?

It's not like she had a booze up in Downing St during lockdown.

Starmer would have been waiting like a hawk for an angle to get her suspended. She's provided him with one. The inconsistency is painfully apparent though.

[Glory Lurker]

I get you not believing in Saints but not dressing up as a leprechaun on Paddy’s day? You are missing out. :greengrin

I dress up as a leprechaun every day, M. Apparently it's not normal.

[marinello59]

I dress up as a leprechaun every day, M. Apparently it's not normal.

But if you are a leprechaun it’s OK. greengrin

[Glory Lurker]

But if you are a leprechaun it’s OK. greengrin

:-)

[ronaldo7]

Starmer would have been waiting like a hawk for an angle to get her suspended. She's provided him with one. The inconsistency is painfully apparent though.

You only have to look at the Labour files to see the double standards at play with Starmer and co, but she has opened herself up to attack. Very naive.

[hibsbollah]

Bit of an overreaction to Abbott's statement. It's her opinion. What happened to people debating in the Labour Party?

It's not like she had a booze up in Downing St during lockdown.

But her ‘opinion’ is unacceptable. Interestingly, her comment about anti traveller prejudice not being real racism was equally unacceptable and actually dangerous, but had less opprobrium attached to it (and yes, the double standards are sickening, we all know that the anti semitic thing is being emphasized because it plays to the baseless ‘lefties hate the Jews’ narrative), but it’s just plain wrong.

[Hibrandenburg]

I get what Abbott is saying but it's worded badly. In most cases a jew, an Irish person or a traveller could walk down the street and they're pretty much incognito because of their skin colour, a dark skinned person hasn't got that luxury and are vulnerable to racism the minute they step outside their front door.

[Stairway 2 7]

I get what Abbott is saying but it's worded badly. In most cases a jew, an Irish person or a traveller could walk down the street and they're pretty much incognito because of their skin colour, a dark skinned person hasn't got that luxury and are vulnerable to racism the minute they step outside their front door.

It's utterly stupid putting a league table up what does it achieve and as said above talking about red heads diminishes the hate relieved by these groups. Gypsy groups are one of the most persecuted groups in the world. Then to say none of these groups can ever understand because they have never had to sit on the back of a bus or be on a slave ship. That's beyond selective, ignoring what happened to Jews and Roma during the holocaust. I'd say traveler groups are about the last minority its seen as ok to make fun off and persecute

[Ozyhibby]

It's utterly stupid putting a league table up what does it achieve and as said above talking about red heads diminishes the hate relieved by these groups. Gypsy groups are one of the most persecuted groups in the world. Then to say none of these groups can ever understand because they have never had to sit on the back of a bus or be on a slave ship. That's beyond selective, ignoring what happened to Jews and Roma during the holocaust. I'd say traveler groups are about the last minority its seen as ok to make fun off and persecute

As Douglas Ross has shown.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/douglas-ross-tried-to-have-traveller-family-evicted-for-being-very-visible/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/douglas-ross-confronted-over-prejudiced-23910491.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Agreed, but did she suggest these groups suffer no racism or have a different experience of racism. Like I say, she's worded it badly but being dark skinned means you're visually different 24/7, not just when someone discovers your ethnicity.

[Stairway 2 7]

As Douglas Ross has shown.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/douglas-ross-tried-to-have-traveller-family-evicted-for-being-very-visible/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/douglas-ross-confronted-over-prejudiced-23910491.amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Felt sick looking at the creep running the line on Saturday

[Stairway 2 7]

Agreed, but did she suggest these groups suffer no racism or have a different experience of racism. Like I say, she's worded it badly but being dark skinned means you're visually different 24/7, not just when someone discovers your ethnicity.

26686

[Stairway 2 7]

Agreed, but did she suggest these groups suffer no racism or have a different experience of racism. Like I say, she's worded it badly but being dark skinned means you're visually different 24/7, not just when someone discovers your ethnicity.

Yep she said they suffer no racism just prejudice the same as red heads do, gypsy groups would have been in uproar if action wasn't taken.

[Hibrandenburg]

26686

Yep, like I say, I get where she's coming from. If an Irish person, a Traveller or a Jew walk down the street without conversing with anyone then they are unlikely to fall victim to racism, a dark skinned person doesn't have that choice.

[Stairway 2 7]

Yep, like I say, I get where she's coming from. If an Irish person, a Traveller or a Jew walk down the street without conversing with anyone then they are unlikely to fall victim to racism, a dark skinned person doesn't have that choice.

That's literally what you're saying. She said nothing like that. She said trav don't get racism just prejudice like red heads, bigoted. People are linking her with Corbyn today, it's a nonsense he would never downplay racism or suffering. Each paragraph is brutal

[Hibrandenburg]

That's literally what you're saying. She said nothing like that. She said trav don't get racism just prejudice like red heads, bigoted. People are linking her with Corbyn today, it's a nonsense he would never downplay racism or suffering. Each paragraph is brutal

Travellers, some Jewish people and Irish people are Caucasian, xenophobia against them is prejudice, against people with dark skin it's racism. I'm having trouble understanding what's so controversial with that statement?

[Stairway 2 7]

Travellers, some Jewish people and Irish people are Caucasian, xenophobia against them is prejudice, against people with dark skin it's racism. I'm having trouble understanding what's so controversial with that statement?

Travellers have racism against them all over Europe, Romani aren't Caucasian they are indo-ayryan. You have got this wrong. There's also the second part when she says these groups could vote in South Africa! And none of them were in shackles in slave ships. That part is just stupid to be Frank. She's ignoring the Irish deliberately starved or sent in slavery to the new world. The gypsies who have probably more discrimination than any group in Europe the last hundred years including the holocaust. Jews well its obvious what she's omitted.

Jesus your probably the only person that sees no problem in it, quite poor. Abbot has said she wants to retract everything she said and adds" it's completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered the monsterous effects of racism, as have Irish people, Travellers and many others "
https://mobile.twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1650072333527252994

[ErinGoBraghHFC]

It's utterly stupid putting a league table up what does it achieve and as said above talking about red heads diminishes the hate relieved by these groups. Gypsy groups are one of the most persecuted groups in the world. Then to say none of these groups can ever understand because they have never had to sit on the back of a bus or be on a slave ship. That's beyond selective, ignoring what happened to Jews and Roma during the holocaust. I'd say traveler groups are about the last minority its seen as ok to make fun off and persecute

For proof of this, see kickback. “Peg sellers” etc aimed at us, presumably because of our clubs Irish catholic (which in no way is sensible, the majority of Irish people are not Irish travellers) heritage. Apparently it’s perfectly acceptable to persecute traveler groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Travellers have racism against them all over Europe, Romani aren't Caucasian they are indo-ayryan. You have got this wrong. There's also the second part when she says these groups could vote in South Africa! And none of them were in shackles in slave ships. That part is just stupid to be Frank. She's ignoring the Irish deliberately starved or sent in slavery to the new world. The gypsies who have probably more discrimination than any group in Europe the last hundred years including the holocaust. Jews well its obvious what she's omitted.

Jesus your probably the only person that sees no problem in it, quite poor. Abbot has said she wants to retract everything she said and adds" it's completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered the monsterous effects of racism, as have Irish people, Travellers and many others "
https://mobile.twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1650072333527252994

I'll say it one more time and then I give up. I'm not saying that the other groups haven't suffered horrible injustices now and throughout history. I'm saying that people with dark skin are visibly different the second they step out of their house and just walk down the street. There is no element of doubt for even a second about their ethnicity. How many Jews, ethnic Irish or gypsy people do you pass in the street every day without even noticing their ethnicity? You either can't or won't see the difference so I'll leave it there.

[Paul1642]

I'll say it one more time and then I give up. I'm not saying that the other groups haven't suffered horrible injustices now and throughout history. I'm saying that people with dark skin are visibly different the second they step out of their house and just walk down the street. There is no element of doubt for even a second about their ethnicity. How many Jews, ethnic Irish or gypsy people do you pass in the street every day without even noticing their ethnicity? You either can't or won't see the difference so I'll leave it there.

Unless there are Orthodox Jews in which case they are somewhat visible. And an Irish man might not be identifiable at a glance but the moment the open their mouth to speak its often pretty obvious.

Roma Gypseys are also pretty distinctive at times. Put them on a busy British high street and they might not stand out but how about other certain other places in Europe or the world.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'll say it one more time and then I give up. I'm not saying that the other groups haven't suffered horrible injustices now and throughout history. I'm saying that people with dark skin are visibly different the second they step out of their house and just walk down the street. There is no element of doubt for even a second about their ethnicity. How many Jews, ethnic Irish or gypsy people do you pass in the street every day without even noticing their ethnicity? You either can't or won't see the difference so I'll leave it there.

As said above Roma and Hisidic Jews are very visible. But you're also saying things she didn't say. She said Jews weren't persecuted in pre civil rights America but left out 6 million of them were systematically slaughtered due to their race. She's thankfully admitted she was completely wrong

[Hibrandenburg]

Unless there are Orthodox Jews in which case they are somewhat visible. And an Irish man might not be identifiable at a glance but the moment the open their mouth to speak its often pretty obvious.

Roma Gypseys are also pretty distinctive at times. Put them on a busy British high street and they might not stand out but how about other certain other places in Europe or the world.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what's so difficult to understand, there's a subtle difference between racism or xenophobia experienced by people with dark skin and obvious other visible physical appearance than the other groups mentioned.

[Hibrandenburg]

As said above Roma and Hisidic Jews are very visible. But you're also saying things she didn't say. She said Jews weren't persecuted in pre civil rights America but left out 6 million of them were systematically slaughtered due to their race. She's thankfully admitted she was completely wrong

She was wrong to say what she said, but what she meant was different to how it was interpreted but that's her fault imo.

I've walked down the street with friends with different skin colour and witnessed people staring at them or even crossing the street to avoid them, I can only imagine what that's like to experience day after day or even worse night after night when they're alone on the street. I've no friends with gypsy heritage so can't comment on that but my Jewish and Irish friends don't experience nearly the same level of xenophobia as my Vietnamese friend.

[hibsbollah]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't see what's so difficult to understand, there's a subtle difference between racism or xenophobia experienced by people with dark skin and obvious other visible physical appearance than the other groups mentioned.

Yes. Agreed.
Where she ****ed up is adding the effect to the cause, by saying ‘it’s not racism, it’s prejudice’.
It’s not up there with calling Muslim women walking letterboxes but she is toast because of who she is as well as because she has a wonky political trouble radar.

[He's here!]

As said above Roma and Hisidic Jews are very visible. But you're also saying things she didn't say. She said Jews weren't persecuted in pre civil rights America but left out 6 million of them were systematically slaughtered due to their race. She's thankfully admitted she was completely wrong

For her to re-open the barely healed wounds of Labour's anti- Semitism saga was foolish in the extreme, let alone making such misguided comments about their race.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1650424908382457857?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Great clip of Jackie Baillie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

https://twitter.com/msm_monitor/status/1650424908382457857?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Great clip of Jackie Baillie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bailey has always been awful. But surely they are not complaining about Starmer bringing in windfall tax on North Sea oil and using UK wide.

[He's here!]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65374104

Abbott set to follow Corbyn out the door? It's strong condemnation from Starmer.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's strong condemnation from Starmer.

Only when it suits him though. He'll happily look the other way when it comes to the "right" people in his party.

[Stairway 2 7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65374104

Abbott set to follow Corbyn out the door? It's strong condemnation from Starmer.

McConnell said she was completely wrong in her statement and she knows it, but she should be forgiven. Most on the left like Sarkar and Webbe have said similar, there is no excuse but they support her.

What I'd object to is Starmer just mentioning its antisemitic. It clearly is and he needs to be clear that that's not tolerated for obvious reasons, but is it ok to say Roma and Travellers can't receive racism. There's also double standards on what's pulled up, I've not fact checked but I'm sure there's other mps that have said poor things.

The most disappointing thing with the letter is the lack of solidarity between persecuted groups. The **** bags are literally in power now Braverman, Mogg ,Patel etc al. Making us look at boats of people trying to change their lives whilst we can't afford gas

[He's here!]

McConnell said she was completely wrong in her statement and she knows it, but she should be forgiven. Most on the left like Sarkar and Webbe have said similar, there is no excuse but they support her.

What I'd object to is Starmer just mentioning its antisemitic. It clearly is and he needs to be clear that that's not tolerated for obvious reasons, but is it ok to say Roma and Travellers can't receive racism. There's also double standards on what's pulled up, I've not fact checked but I'm sure there's other mps that have said poor things.

The most disappointing thing with the letter is the lack of solidarity between persecuted groups. The **** bags are literally in power now Braverman, Mogg ,Patel etc al. Making us look at boats of people trying to change their lives whilst we can't afford gas

Do you mean in her apology or in her original letter?

For me, she compounded the error with her apology by claiming a first draft of the letter got sent out by mistake. This makes next to no sense. How many folk say in a first draft the exact opposite of what the final draft is going to say? And, given that her published letter took issue with Owalde's article, are we being asked to believe she actually intended to send a letter agreeing with him? It's a daft and unnecessary fudge (probably suggested by her PR team) and makes what would otherwise have been a plain, wholehearted apology look a bit daft.

[hibsbollah]

McConnell said she was completely wrong in her statement and she knows it, but she should be forgiven. Most on the left like Sarkar and Webbe have said similar, there is no excuse but they support her.

What I'd object to is Starmer just mentioning its antisemitic. It clearly is and he needs to be clear that that's not tolerated for obvious reasons, but is it ok to say Roma and Travellers can't receive racism. There's also double standards on what's pulled up, I've not fact checked but I'm sure there's other mps that have said poor things.

The most disappointing thing with the letter is the lack of solidarity between persecuted groups. The **** bags are literally in power now Braverman, Mogg ,Patel etc al. Making us look at boats of people trying to change their lives whilst we can't afford gas

Sarkar didn’t ‘support her’ at all, she said it was indefensible on LBC. When and in what interview was she ‘supporting her?

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/sangita-myska/ash-sarkar-diane-abbott-labour-whip-suspended/

Corbyn tweeted this morning the comments were ‘disgraceful’ and that she had been ‘rightly suspended’. I wouldn’t have expected anything else.

The Independents headline is ‘Labour Left Abandons Diane Abbott’, so I’m not sure what you’re reading and seeing.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Do you mean in her apology or in her original letter?

For me, she compounded the error with her apology by claiming a first draft of the letter got sent out by mistake. This makes next to no sense. How many folk say in a first draft the exact opposite of what the final draft is going to say? And, given that her published letter took issue with Owalde's article, are we being asked to believe she actually intended to send a letter agreeing with him? It's a daft and unnecessary fudge (probably suggested by her PR team) and makes what would otherwise have been a plain, wholehearted apology look a bit daft.

She didn't say her first draft was the exact opposite of what the final draft was going to say. But there would have likely been a change of wording and context that would have prevented Keir Starmer and his gang from deliberately misinterpreting the fundamental purpose of her letter, just so it could be used against her.

Her crime here wasn't some vicious anti-Semitic or anti-Irish sentiment. It was poor wording and context on her first draft that gave way to opportunism for those that wanted her out the door.

I mean, it's her own fault for giving them the opportunity. But that's all it really was.

[Stairway 2 7]

Sarkar didn’t ‘support her’ at all, she said it was indefensible on LBC. When and in what interview was she ‘supporting her?

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/sangita-myska/ash-sarkar-diane-abbott-labour-whip-suspended/

Corbyn tweeted this morning the comments were ‘disgraceful’ and that she had been ‘rightly suspended’. I wouldn’t have expected anything else.

The Independents headline is ‘Labour Left Abandons Diane Abbott’, so I’m not sure what you’re reading and seeing.

Support her as in getting reinstated and pointing out the hypocrisy of it all

Ash Sarkar
@AyoCaesar
·
When Steve Reed called a Jewish Tory donor a “puppet master”, he didn't have the Labour whip removed. Rupa Huq had the whip restored after describing Kwarteng as "superficially" black.

Diane Abbott has to be allowed the same grace as other politicians. It's a matter of fairness

If other Labour MPs are allowed back in the fold after apologising unreservedly, as Diane Abbott has done, that has to be the same standard that she's held to. Otherwise it's just flagrant discrimination on the part of Keir Starmer

AyoCaesar
·
Apr 23
Diane Abbott's letter was wrong, no doubt about it. Journalists (and indeed, the Labour Party), however, are proving that there *is* such a thing as a hierarchy of racism by erasing what she said about the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community

The reason why the stuff about the GRT community is being erased is because hatred against them is considered socially acceptable, even 'common-sense'. We're watching the hierarchy of racism in real-time

She retweeted both of these
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
Apr 23
Diane Abbot has suffered much racist abuse in her life. It is important to accept her apology in a spirit of kindness and understanding. All racism and discrimination, against whichever ethnicities, faiths and communities, is just wrong

@joinaunionpls
·
19h
Diane Abbott's letter aside, there is something frankly *gross* about a bunch of white reactionaries who support deportations & increasing police powers, luxuriating themselves in the perverse pleasure of getting to call a black woman racist

[Stairway 2 7]

She didn't say her first draft was the exact opposite of what the final draft was going to say. But there would have likely been a change of wording and context that would have prevented Keir Starmer and his gang from deliberately misinterpreting the fundamental purpose of her letter, just so it could be used against her.

Her crime here wasn't some vicious anti-Semitic or anti-Irish sentiment. It was poor wording and context on her first draft that gave way to opportunism for those that wanted her out the door.

I mean, it's her own fault for giving them the opportunity. But that's all it really was.

Nah she said Jews and travellers can't receive racism, indefensible in my opinion. Then bringing up that they never had the horrors of apartheid or slavery so can't understand is obviously mental and terrible too.

[hibsbollah]

Support her as in getting reinstated and pointing out the hypocrisy of it all

Ash Sarkar
@AyoCaesar
·
When Steve Reed called a Jewish Tory donor a “puppet master”, he didn't have the Labour whip removed. Rupa Huq had the whip restored after describing Kwarteng as "superficially" black.

Diane Abbott has to be allowed the same grace as other politicians. It's a matter of fairness

If other Labour MPs are allowed back in the fold after apologising unreservedly, as Diane Abbott has done, that has to be the same standard that she's held to. Otherwise it's just flagrant discrimination on the part of Keir Starmer

AyoCaesar
·
Apr 23
Diane Abbott's letter was wrong, no doubt about it. Journalists (and indeed, the Labour Party), however, are proving that there *is* such a thing as a hierarchy of racism by erasing what she said about the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community

The reason why the stuff about the GRT community is being erased is because hatred against them is considered socially acceptable, even 'common-sense'. We're watching the hierarchy of racism in real-time

She retweeted both of these
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
Apr 23
Diane Abbot has suffered much racist abuse in her life. It is important to accept her apology in a spirit of kindness and understanding. All racism and discrimination, against whichever ethnicities, faiths and communities, is just wrong

@joinaunionpls
·
19h
Diane Abbott's letter aside, there is something frankly *gross* about a bunch of white reactionaries who support deportations & increasing police powers, luxuriating themselves in the perverse pleasure of getting to call a black woman racist

That’s not the same thing as ‘supporting her’ is it? None of those tweets support your initial inaccurate statement.

Just to be clear, the Left are unanimously condemning Abbots stance in the strongest terms. As even the Tory peer owned Indy point out very clearly. Just because they are also calling for CONSISTENCY to be applied, as part of longer, wider discussions and interviews doesn’t change that one bit.

[Stairway 2 7]

That’s not the same thing as ‘supporting her’ is it? None of those tweets support your initial inaccurate statement.

Just to be clear, the Left are unanimously condemning Abbots stance in the strongest terms. As even the Tory peer owned Indy point out very clearly. Just because they are also calling for CONSISTENCY to be applied, as part of longer, wider discussions and interviews doesn’t change that one bit.

Your hard work eh. Spend half your posts telling me what I really mean, you're boring. I think that is showing some support you don't and I'm not particularly fussy tbh 😴

[hibsbollah]

Your hard work eh. Spend half your posts telling me what I really mean, you're boring. I think that is showing some support you don't and I'm not particularly fussy tbh 😴

You said, in relation to alleged pro-Abbott statements ‘…most on the Left have said similar’. That’s blatantly rubbish, as I’ve shown with a couple of obvious examples.

I’m just calling you out for being inaccurate, don’t get huffy. If you don’t like it, stop being inaccurate. But maybe you’re just ‘not fussy’ about accuracy.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Nah she said Jews and travellers can't receive racism, indefensible in my opinion. Then bringing up that they never had the horrors of apartheid or slavery so can't understand is obviously mental and terrible too.

Judaism is a religion, not a race. A person can't change their race, but anybody can change/join a religion, including Judaism. So discrimination and hate crimes against Jewish people should be classed as sectarianism, not racism. So even although her choice of wording was very poor, she was technically correct.

[Stairway 2 7]

You said, in relation to alleged pro-Abbott statements ‘…most on the Left have said similar’. That’s blatantly rubbish, as I’ve shown with a couple of obvious examples.

I’m just calling you out for being inaccurate, don’t get huffy. If you don’t like it, stop being inaccurate. But maybe you’re just ‘not fussy’ about accuracy.

No even sure what your mumbling about tbh. Most on the left I've seen like Jones, sarkar and Webbe have said similar in that the comments are wrong as Abbott has also said, but they have all shown some support by either pointing out the hypocrisy of the suspension or saying she has received more racism than anyone, as in sarkars tweets.

Here's where you come back and post some self pleasure yawn.

[He's here!]

Judaism is a religion, not a race. A person can't change their race, but anybody can change/join a religion, including Judaism. So discrimination and hate crimes against Jewish people should be classed as sectarianism, not racism. So even although her choice of wording was very poor, she was technically correct.

And yet in her apology she states that "racism takes many forms and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects".

[Stairway 2 7]

Judaism is a religion, not a race. A person can't change their race, but anybody can change/join a religion, including Judaism. So discrimination and hate crimes against Jewish people should be classed as sectarianism, not racism. So even although her choice of wording was very poor, she was technically correct.

Romani is an indo-ayryan race so she's wrong? 6 million Jews were slaughtered due to their race so getting into semantics is daft. You don't hit other persecuted groups

[TrumpIsAPeado]

And yet in her apology she states that "racism takes many forms and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects".

Well yes, Jewish people can be subject to racism based on their race. But there are Jewish people across the world from many different races. When a person is abused due to their race, then it's racism. If they're abused due to their religion, it's sectarianism. I don't know how that can be disputed.

[He's here!]

She didn't say her first draft was the exact opposite of what the final draft was going to say. But there would have likely been a change of wording and context that would have prevented Keir Starmer and his gang from deliberately misinterpreting the fundamental purpose of her letter, just so it could be used against her.

Her crime here wasn't some vicious anti-Semitic or anti-Irish sentiment. It was poor wording and context on her first draft that gave way to opportunism for those that wanted her out the door.

I mean, it's her own fault for giving them the opportunity. But that's all it really was.

Her supposed 'first draft' stated that Jews don't suffer racism and pretty much the entire letter consists of explaining why this is the case. Unless the 'final draft' was a drastic reversal of that opinion then it's hard to see how the 'context' would have changed.

I'm not suggesting she did this out of anti-Semitic or anti-Irish sentiment, just that to pin the blame on an erroneous first draft seems a feeble and, to be blunt, hard to believe excuse. A straight, hands-up I called that completely wrong apology would have spared her more flak than she's already taking.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

Romani is an indo-ayryan race so she's wrong? 6 million Jews were slaughtered due to their race so getting into semantics is daft. You don't hit other persecuted groups

Semantics matter when you're getting into the motive of why a person does or says something, as it can change the context considerably.

[Stairway 2 7]

Semantics matter when you're getting into the motive of why a person does or says something, as it can change the context considerably.

You ignoring Travellers, you ignoring she equates red heads, you ignoring she says they would be able to vote in South Africa but ignores the slaughter of 6 million Jews and thousands of gypsies.

Descent article from a professor of Jewish studies, the far right would love the downplaying of antisemitism
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/diane-abbott-racism-antisemitism-b2325729.html

The idea that Nazi intolerance toward Jews was not expressed in racial terms would be absurd. The notion that, with the defeat of Nazi Germany, antisemitism suddenly stopped being about race is similarly hard to maintain

[TrumpIsAPeado]

You ignoring Travellers, you ignoring she equates red heads, you ignoring she says they would be able to vote in South Africa but ignores the slaughter of 6 million Jews and thousands of gypsies.

Descent article from a professor of Jewish studies, the far right would love the downplaying of antisemitism
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/diane-abbott-racism-antisemitism-b2325729.html

The idea that Nazi intolerance toward Jews was not expressed in racial terms would be absurd. The notion that, with the defeat of Nazi Germany, antisemitism suddenly stopped being about race is similarly hard to maintain

I'm not defending her letter here. This isn't about one extreme over the other. I suggest people read the full letter directly to get the full context and then they can draw their own conclusions from it. Rather than jumping on cherry picked headlines and internet hyperbole, which we all seem to do these days.

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm not defending her letter here. This isn't about one extreme over the other. I suggest people read the full letter directly to get the full context and then they can draw their own conclusions from it. Rather than jumping on cherry picked headlines and internet hyperbole, which we all seem to do these days.

I have multiple times. I think 99% agree there is no defending it, including Abbott. I'd say here's the only place I've seen anyone say she's right, which is quite scary

[TrumpIsAPeado]

I have multiple times. I think 99% agree there is no defending it, including Abbott. I'd say here's the only place I've seen anyone say she's right, which is quite scary

I said her very selective points were technically right, not that she was right to make that letter.

[Hibrandenburg]

I have multiple times. I think 99% agree there is no defending it, including Abbott. I'd say here's the only place I've seen anyone say she's right, which is quite scary

Is anyone saying she's right?

[Stairway 2 7]

Is anyone saying she's right?

Well you pretty much agreed with her that the groups can't have racism against them just prejudice. Even she disagrees with this now.

[Ozyhibby]

Abbott has been the Tories useful idiot for a long time now. Starmer has jumped at the chance to get rid of her. I would have too if I was him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibsbollah]

No even sure what your mumbling about tbh. Most on the left I've seen like Jones, sarkar and Webbe have said similar in that the comments are wrong as Abbott has also said, but they have all shown some support by either pointing out the hypocrisy of the suspension or saying she has received more racism than anyone, as in sarkars tweets.

Here's where you come back and post some self pleasure yawn.

You clearly don’t have the class to admit you are just, plain wrong.

Your posts should come with a fact check. You just make things up and keep digging.

[Stairway 2 7]

You clearly don’t have the class to admit you are just, plain wrong.

Your posts should come with a fact check. You just make things up and keep digging.

Your my stalker with constant comments wrongly saying what im thinking day after day, it's creepy block me please.

[hibsbollah]

Your my stalker with constant comments wrongly saying what im thinking day after day, it's creepy block me please.

No, I feel like I should continue to point out when you are clearly making things up, if that’s alright with you :aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

Your my stalker with constant comments wrongly saying what im thinking day after day, it's creepy block me please.

I have never understood this “If you don’t like what I’m saying then put me on ignore” chat on a message board.

The forum is a public space and so people will agree with you, or not, and say so. There are also a fair number of people who read without posting, which is absolutely fair enough, and guests who also read.

What exactly is it that people who say ‘Block me’ want? Because it seems like they want to voice an opinion without being challenged or contradicted by anyone else. In which case why don’t they just email themself and cut out the middleman.

I have never put anyone on ‘Ignore’, I simply can’t understand why one would do that. Not anyone with any reasonable degree of maturity at least.

[Stairway 2 7]

No, I feel like I should continue to point out when you are clearly making things up, if that’s alright with you :aok:

Made things up. I said sarkar was showing support you said she wasn't, I still disagree and put up the tweets she shared that i think show support and asking for her to be reinstated. It's a minor point that I'm not even arsed about and I'm stunned your still going on about it. It's very weird creepy behaviour, genuinely are you ok mate?

[hibsbollah]

Made things up. I said sarkar was showing support you said she wasn't, I still disagree and put up the tweets she shared that i think show support and asking for her to be reinstated. It's a minor point that I'm not even arsed about and I'm stunned your still going on about it. It's very weird creepy behaviour, genuinely are you ok mate?

Everybody on here can read, so can see you are diverting, and you’re now just being rude.

Don’t be angry, hopefully you will learn from your mistakes and stop making things up.

[He's here!]

I'm not defending her letter here. This isn't about one extreme over the other. I suggest people read the full letter directly to get the full context and then they can draw their own conclusions from it. Rather than jumping on cherry picked headlines and internet hyperbole, which we all seem to do these days.

As Starmer has pointed out 'there is no hierarchy of racism'. The full letter is so short (just a couple of paragraphs) that there's no real 'context' to be debated. It's just plain wrong. The 'first draft' excuse seems highly improbable.

I don't doubt that as the first black female MP elected to Westminster Abbott has likely suffered more racist abuse than any MP during her lengthy political career, which is what makes an error like this surprising. However, I think Starmer would be acting harshly if he refuses to let her back into the party. Unlike Corbyn, whose day in the sun was an almost freakish occurrence, Abbott has occupied high office for the bulk of her career and probably merits more respect for that than being cast aside for a mistake she very quickly apologised for. Yes she's been gaffe prone but a succession of leaders have valued her input.

[Hibrandenburg]

Well you pretty much agreed with her that the groups can't have racism against them just prejudice. Even she disagrees with this now.

You're making things up again, I said no such thing.

[Stairway 2 7]

Everybody on here can read, so can see you are diverting, and you’re now just being rude.

Don’t be angry, hopefully you will learn from your mistakes and stop making things up.

What did I make up. I'm literally not diverting I'm saying sarkar supported her, I put up the tweets to support this. You disagree, what's the debate?

[Hibrandenburg]

You clearly don’t have the class to admit you are just, plain wrong.

Your posts should come with a fact check. You just make things up and keep digging.

:agree:

[Stairway 2 7]

I have never understood this “If you don’t like what I’m saying then put me on ignore” chat on a message board.

The forum is a public space and so people will agree with you, or not, and say so. There are also a fair number of people who read without posting, which is absolutely fair enough, and guests who also read.

What exactly is it that people who say ‘Block me’ want? Because it seems like they want to voice an opinion without being challenged or contradicted by anyone else. In which case why don’t they just email themself and cut out the middleman.

I have never put anyone on ‘Ignore’, I simply can’t understand why one would do that. Not anyone with any reasonable degree of maturity at least.

People disagree with me all the time and I them i enjoy that. I get stuff wrong all the time also such is life. That's different from him constantly saying I'm saying something I'm not and saying im lying basically, it's boring and rude.

[Stairway 2 7]

You're making things up again, I said no such thing.

"Travellers, some Jewish people and Irish people are Caucasian, xenophobia against them is prejudice, against people with dark skin it's racism. I'm having trouble understanding what's so controversial with that statement?"

Is what you said. It's missing the fact Romani people receive brutal racism. Abbott has backtracked and said these groups do receive racism

[Hibrandenburg]

"Travellers, some Jewish people and Irish people are Caucasian, xenophobia against them is prejudice, against people with dark skin it's racism. I'm having trouble understanding what's so controversial with that statement?"

Is what you said. It's missing the fact Romani people receive brutal racism. Abbott has backtracked and said these groups do receive racism

You said Romani I said travellers, the Romani are only one group of travellers and as they have dark skin I'd include them amongst those who are racially prejudiced against based on their appearance.

[Stairway 2 7]

You said Romani I said travellers, the Romani are only one group of travellers and as they have dark skin I'd include them amongst those who are racially prejudiced against based on their appearance.

That was the debate though that many travellers are of a different race. I agree there is no hiding your skin colour whilst walking along the street ect. But she doesn't have to undermine some of the most persecuted groups in the world to raise the point, especially bringing up red heads ect. Another problem thing is saying they groups would be able to vote in South Africa, when ignoring the persecution the groups have suffered. It was daft of her to say ones had it worse than the other. At the same time as sarkar and Peston said others have done worse and been allowed to continue.

A tory last week said white people should have black slaves and there was less uproar

[Ozyhibby]

I have never understood this “If you don’t like what I’m saying then put me on ignore” chat on a message board.

The forum is a public space and so people will agree with you, or not, and say so. There are also a fair number of people who read without posting, which is absolutely fair enough, and guests who also read.

What exactly is it that people who say ‘Block me’ want? Because it seems like they want to voice an opinion without being challenged or contradicted by anyone else. In which case why don’t they just email themself and cut out the middleman.

I have never put anyone on ‘Ignore’, I simply can’t understand why one would do that. Not anyone with any reasonable degree of maturity at least.

I recently put a poster on ignore due to the absolute nonsense they posted. Was a great decision. Said poster got banned a couple of weeks later anyway but I think I’m better off for not knowing why.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I recently put a poster on ignore due to the absolute nonsense they posted. Was a great decision. Said poster got banned a couple of weeks later anyway but I think I’m better off for not knowing why.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See that's just harsh. I would never put you on ignore :greengrin

[WhileTheChief..]

I have never understood this “If you don’t like what I’m saying then put me on ignore” chat on a message board.

The forum is a public space and so people will agree with you, or not, and say so. There are also a fair number of people who read without posting, which is absolutely fair enough, and guests who also read.

What exactly is it that people who say ‘Block me’ want? Because it seems like they want to voice an opinion without being challenged or contradicted by anyone else. In which case why don’t they just email themself and cut out the middleman.

I have never put anyone on ‘Ignore’, I simply can’t understand why one would do that. Not anyone with any reasonable degree of maturity at least.

Not speaking for anyone else, but I put 2 people on ignore because it was a pain in the backside with them quoting me on every thread in the Holy ground.

They didn’t care what I posted, the fact it was by me was enough for them. Add in the snidely, wide or damn right rude replies and I figured why am I reading this?

Now, they still quote me, but I’ve no idea what they say. I don’t ever click the view reply option. They same posters never quoted me on the main board despite me posting there far more frequently. That’s where it gets a bit stalker-ish. D

So I don’t think it’s down to maturity at all. I’m more than happy to discuss any issue with anyone on here but I’m not into constant arguments. There’s nothing good comes from it and the posters I blocked rarely, if ever, offered their own views on the subject.

I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything and enjoy the break from the constant nagging from them.

I still like posting and reading views from the opposite sides of the arguments and it’s more enjoyable now.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not speaking for anyone else, but I put 2 people on ignore because it was a pain in the backside with them quoting me on every thread in the Holy ground.

They didn’t care what I posted, the fact it was by me was enough for them. Add in the snidely, wide or damn right rude replies and I figured why am I reading this?

Now, they still quote me, but I’ve no idea what they say. I don’t ever click the view reply option. They same posters never quoted me on the main board despite me posting there far more frequently. That’s where it gets a bit stalker-ish. D

So I don’t think it’s down to maturity at all. I’m more than happy to discuss any issue with anyone on here but I’m not into constant arguments. There’s nothing good comes from it and the posters I blocked rarely, if ever, offered their own views on the subject.

I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything and enjoy the break from the constant nagging from them.

I still like posting and reading views from the opposite sides of the arguments and it’s more enjoyable now.

Fair response, I can see where you are coming from :aok:

[He's here!]

Diane Abbott’s ‘anti- Semitic’ Observer letter was sent twice, casting doubt on her claim it was a draft (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/diane-abbott-s-anti-semitic-observer-letter-was-sent-twice-casting-doubt-on-her-claim-it-was-a-draft/ar-AA1aiYBS)

The 'draft version' excuse inevitably coming back to bite Abbott.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

As Starmer has pointed out 'there is no hierarchy of racism'. The full letter is so short (just a couple of paragraphs) that there's no real 'context' to be debated. It's just plain wrong. The 'first draft' excuse seems highly improbable.

I don't doubt that as the first black female MP elected to Westminster Abbott has likely suffered more racist abuse than any MP during her lengthy political career, which is what makes an error like this surprising. However, I think Starmer would be acting harshly if he refuses to let her back into the party. Unlike Corbyn, whose day in the sun was an almost freakish occurrence, Abbott has occupied high office for the bulk of her career and probably merits more respect for that than being cast aside for a mistake she very quickly apologised for. Yes she's been gaffe prone but a succession of leaders have valued her input.

Keir Starmer says that but his inactions against other members and candidates within the party who have been guilty of arguably worse would suggest that he does think that there's a hierarchy of racism, depending on the individual that he's dealing with.

I'd be surprised if he allowed her back in now. I think he wanted her out and was just waiting for the opportune moment to get her out. Like I said though, she provided him with the opportunity and she has to take responsibility for that.

[neil7908]

Keir Starmer says that but his inactions against other members and candidates within the party who have been guilty of arguably worse would suggest that he does think that there's a hierarchy of racism, depending on the individual that he's dealing with.

I'd be surprised if he allowed her back in now. I think he wanted her out and was just waiting for the opportune moment to get her out. Like I said though, she provided him with the opportunity and she has to take responsibility for that.

Yup, this is a real test. If he truly wants to build a Labour Party that values the left and does not treat anti semitism as more urgent than other forms of racism, he will take the same approach here as with others in his party who have said daft things.

If he bins her then it's clear as day what his agenda is.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yup, this is a real test. If he truly wants to build a Labour Party that values the left and does not treat anti semitism as more urgent than other forms of racism, he will take the same approach here as with others in his party who have said daft things.

If he bins her then it's clear as day what his agenda is.


And what's that agenda?

[neil7908]

And what's that agenda?

Push out the left. And treat anti semitism as being a higher priority than other forms of racism. Ironic really given what Abott is (rightly) being criticised for.

[Mibbes Aye]

Push out the left. And treat anti semitism as being a higher priority than other forms of racism. Ironic really given what Abott is (rightly) being criticised for.

Utter nonsense.

She had the whip withdrawn for what just about everyone seems to agree was a very serious matter. Today's reporting now challenges whether she was actually telling the truth in her consequent statement. So it is a formal investigation, following the rules, and why shouldn't it be?

As far as it goes, it is hardly Abbott's first time risking losing the whip. She, McDonnell and others put their name to a letter denouncing NATO as 'eastern expansionists' and contributing to Putin's invasion of Ukraine or some such nonsense. Noticeably she quickly withdrew her name when she was told that taking that position was incompatible with the whip.

As for the racism angle, have a word with yourself. Actually don't. I will form my judgement about Keir Starmer's views on racism from his actions, not your words. One of his first acts as leader was to ask Doreen Lawrence to become Labour's adviser on race relations. They are close. IIRC she introduced him at his first in-person Labour Party conference. She sits for Labour in the Lords. Would she be doing that if she agreed with your characterisation of Starmer?

The Race Relations Act and the Equalities Act legislated against direct and indirect racial discrimination (both brought in under Labour governments, incidentally) but anyone with a working knowledge of anti-discriminatory practice or theory will know that they are merely struggling against the current, or treading water, unless you tackle structural racism. Starmer has committed to legislating against structural racism, if elected.

As I say, actions not words. And, if you are a CLP member you will know you have the opportunity to contribute to party policy through the Labour Policy Forum. So, out of interest, are you a disaffected CLP member who doesn't seem too informed about the party and leadership, or just an outsider having a pop?

[ronaldo7]

Admirable. The branches in Newham and Liverpool seem to agree with Neil.

https://thecorbynproject.com/news/the-labour-files-wins-current-affairs-gold-award-at-new-york-tv-film-festival/

[neil7908]

Utter nonsense.

She had the whip withdrawn for what just about everyone seems to agree was a very serious matter. Today's reporting now challenges whether she was actually telling the truth in her consequent statement. So it is a formal investigation, following the rules, and why shouldn't it be?

As far as it goes, it is hardly Abbott's first time risking losing the whip. She, McDonnell and others put their name to a letter denouncing NATO as 'eastern expansionists' and contributing to Putin's invasion of Ukraine or some such nonsense. Noticeably she quickly withdrew her name when she was told that taking that position was incompatible with the whip.

As for the racism angle, have a word with yourself. Actually don't. I will form my judgement about Keir Starmer's views on racism from his actions, not your words. One of his first acts as leader was to ask Doreen Lawrence to become Labour's adviser on race relations. They are close. IIRC she introduced him at his first in-person Labour Party conference. She sits for Labour in the Lords. Would she be doing that if she agreed with your characterisation of Starmer?

The Race Relations Act and the Equalities Act legislated against direct and indirect racial discrimination (both brought in under Labour governments, incidentally) but anyone with a working knowledge of anti-discriminatory practice or theory will know that they are merely struggling against the current, or treading water, unless you tackle structural racism. Starmer has committed to legislating against structural racism, if elected.

As I say, actions not words. And, if you are a CLP member you will know you have the opportunity to contribute to party policy through the Labour Policy Forum. So, out of interest, are you a disaffected CLP member who doesn't seem too informed about the party and leadership, or just an outsider having a pop?

Ah cool so we'll just ignore all of the black Labour Party members, MPs etc who have said this IS an issue:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims

https://www.voice-online.co.uk/news/exclusive-news/2022/10/27/labour-is-taking-the-black-vote-for-granted/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/forde-report-labour-party-racism-b2126627.html

You might not think it's an issue but they do - why are they wrong?

And FWIW I have been a member for years but not any more. As you can probably guess I don't feel at home in the party any more. And I left well before Corbyn became leader, not after.

I also found it quite telling that in Starmers condemnation of her comments, there was two references to anti semitism, but curiously travellers and they Irish weren't referenced. Why would that be? Surely her comments were just as offensive to those groups?

[Mibbes Aye]

Admirable. The branches in Newham and Liverpool seem to agree with Neil.

https://thecorbynproject.com/news/the-labour-files-wins-current-affairs-gold-award-at-new-york-tv-film-festival/

It never ceases to amuse me when a SNP supporter who frequently calls out huge swathes of the media as being biased, suddenly decides one particular reporting outlet suits them to the ground. If any media outlet presented 'findings' about the SNP in the way Al-Jazeera has about Labour you would be scornful.

You do seem to be spending an awful lot of time skulking around on this thread at the moment though. Bit too spicy for you on the SNP threads? I notice you never responded on the Forbes low-tax small-government stuff. I assume that's because you agree?

[Mibbes Aye]

Ah cool so we'll just ignore all of the black Labour Party members, MPs etc who have said this IS an issue:

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims

https://www.voice-online.co.uk/news/exclusive-news/2022/10/27/labour-is-taking-the-black-vote-for-granted/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/forde-report-labour-party-racism-b2126627.html

You might not think it's an issue but they do - why are they wrong?

And FWIW I have been a member for years but not any more. As you can probably guess I don't feel at home in the party any more. And I left well before Corbyn became leader, not after.

I also found it quite telling that in Starmers condemnation of her comments, there was two references to anti semitism, but curiously travellers and they Irish weren't referenced. Why would that be? Surely her comments were just as offensive to those groups?

Did you read the links before posting them?

It's pretty thin gruel isn't it. Reporting about the Forde report, which was commissioned by Keir Starmer in case you had forgotten. Some stuff about and by Abbott. A former staffer who was fired and appears to be rather unhappy about it. And a councillor who didn't get short-listed as a PPC and seems somewhat bitter about it.

As for your last paragraph, you said you found it telling. What did it tell you? Starmer said at the outset that he wanted to tear anti-semitism out of the party by its roots. Because that was a clear and present issue. No one was going around suggesting the Labour Party was infested with people bigoted against travellers or the Irish, don't be ridiculous.

But going back to your opening comment, saying 'ah cool', really? Is that how you respond when facts get in the way of your prejudice? If accepting 'hierarchies of racism' is Labour policy, why would Starmer fundamentally reject it and also commit to legislating against structural racism? It's almost impossible to think of a way in which one could be more anti-racist.

[Paul1642]

Push out the left. And treat anti semitism as being a higher priority than other forms of racism. Ironic really given what Abott is (rightly) being criticised for.

Nonsense. Removing Abbott from the party is not pushing out the left. It’s removing a liability of a politician whose views are not held by Labours voters or target voters and are offensive to many. I’ve said long before the current events that she’s an anti white racist imo.

And for a party who under Cornyn were pretty publicly anti semetic at times it’s quite right that they are making a show of ending that. That’s how you apologise and make things right.

[neil7908]

Did you read the links before posting them?

It's pretty thin gruel isn't it. Reporting about the Forde report, which was commissioned by Keir Starmer in case you had forgotten. Some stuff about and by Abbott. A former staffer who was fired and appears to be rather unhappy about it. And a councillor who didn't get short-listed as a PPC and seems somewhat bitter about it.

As for your last paragraph, you said you found it telling. What did it tell you? Starmer said at the outset that he wanted to tear anti-semitism out of the party by its roots. Because that was a clear and present issue. No one was going around suggesting the Labour Party was infested with people bigoted against travellers or the Irish, don't be ridiculous.

But going back to your opening comment, saying 'ah cool', really? Is that how you respond when facts get in the way of your prejudice? If accepting 'hierarchies of racism' is Labour policy, why would Starmer fundamentally reject it and also commit to legislating against structural racism? It's almost impossible to think of a way in which one could be more anti-racist.

Did you read them? I can't fathom your dismissal of Forde"s comments. As you say, Starmer appointed him and has carried out many of his recommendations. Yet Forde last month states:

"Forde told Al Jazeera: “Anti-black racism and Islamophobia is not taken as seriously as antisemitism within the Labour party, that’s the perception that has come through.” He added: “My slight anxiety is that in terms of hierarchy, and genuine underlying concerns about wider racial issues, it’s not in my view a sufficient response to say that was then, this is now.”

I'm not the one saying these things - Forde is.

Here is another quote:

"A number of Labour MPs have voiced concern over the party’s engagement with the Forde report."

It goes on to directly cite a number of Labour MPs who share these concerns. So we have multiple Labour MPs, staffers and Forde himself all saying its a problem. I don't want to put words in your month but you are saying all of these individuals are wrong? Again, Forde, who literally wrote the book on this, is wrong?

RE your third paragraph. You've backed up exactly what I am saying - Starmer has such a focus on anti semitism that he is less interested in other forms of racism. This is literally a prime example of what I'm saying. Comments were made that were offensive to Jewish people, travellers and the Irish. But Starmer is really only interested, and only talks about impact on one of those groups. Yes he wants to made particularly clear that he is dealing with anti semitism in the party but again, what he is doing is taking that as the priority, not racism against other groups.

Your last paragraph. I've given plenty of facts. You just don't like them. My examples were dismissed as disgruntled ex Labour staffers! Black people citing their experience in Labour being thrown out by you as they are 'subversive' elements.

Finally, of course hierarchies of racism is not official Labour policy. I don't think Starmer is racist but he has (understandably) seen the need to tackle anti semitism strongly. Fine and I support him on that. But the challenge is that is sees that, due to image, as being more of a serious issue than other forms of racism. So in practice a hierarchy of racism.

Shockingly there won't be an official policy document I can point to on this. But I can listen to people in and around Labour. Something your own prejudice appears to dismiss out of hand. I guess Forde, Kate Osamor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Apsana Begum, Abott (yes her), Halima Khan and Maurice Mcleod are all subversive elements that must be ignored, as if we listen to them, it might mean we have to criticise Starmer...

[ronaldo7]

It never ceases to amuse me when a SNP supporter who frequently calls out huge swathes of the media as being biased, suddenly decides one particular reporting outlet suits them to the ground. If any media outlet presented 'findings' about the SNP in the way Al-Jazeera has about Labour you would be scornful.

You do seem to be spending an awful lot of time skulking around on this thread at the moment though. Bit too spicy for you on the SNP threads? I notice you never responded on the Forbes low-tax small-government stuff. I assume that's because you agree?

Try and stay on track mate.

I didn't have you down as this threads policeman. I've spent plenty of time on this thread as I have others on the holy ground. Do I now have restricted access, just because you don't like your Labour party held to account.

Double standards MA, I thought better of you.

Had you actually listened to the series of videos, you'd not be so quick to post your usual "Nonsense" responses to anything which hold Sir keir to account. But hey ho, anything for power, don't look under that carpet.


This information is from actual Labour members. They're clearly stating that theirs a hierarchy of racism in your party. I'd have thought that would have been something you'd have been worried about, and at least acknowledged.

Then again, maybe no.

[hibsbollah]

Did you read the links before posting them?

It's pretty thin gruel isn't it. Reporting about the Forde report, which was commissioned by Keir Starmer in case you had forgotten. Some stuff about and by Abbott. A former staffer who was fired and appears to be rather unhappy about it. And a councillor who didn't get short-listed as a PPC and seems somewhat bitter about it.

As for your last paragraph, you said you found it telling. What did it tell you? Starmer said at the outset that he wanted to tear anti-semitism out of the party by its roots. Because that was a clear and present issue. No one was going around suggesting the Labour Party was infested with people bigoted against travellers or the Irish, don't be ridiculous.

But going back to your opening comment, saying 'ah cool', really? Is that how you respond when facts get in the way of your prejudice? If accepting 'hierarchies of racism' is Labour policy, why would Starmer fundamentally reject it and also commit to legislating against structural racism? It's almost impossible to think of a way in which one could be more anti-racist.

It’s highly disingenuous to pretend you have critically assessed the dozens of examples of double standards applied by Labour to exclude candidates that were popular, competent and were going to win for Labour because they were considered too Left wing by Labour front office and come to the conclusion that’s it’s all disgruntled Lefties and thin gruel’. Only an idiot could watch the first two episodes of the AJ documentary and come to that conclusion. I don’t believe you are an idiot.

Some honestly needs to be applied here if this debate is become anything more interesting than the Twitter inspired childish back and forward that I recall you saying you dislike.

There’s a large faction, which controls the levers of power in the Party, that hates the Left. It’s exemplified by Mandelsons 2017 comment that he was ‘working every single day’ to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, his own leader :faf: (can you see that kind of statement being tolerated now in the midst of this Stalinist regime we’re living under?) You have been posting for years and years on here in a similar vein.

It’s not complicated and it’s not something that requires smoke and mirrors. It’s actually not something that needs for anyone to be sheepish or embarrassed about. Destroying competing factions is a big part of the political arena, from Roman times through and exemplified by Machiavelli’s work. And I wish the modern British Left was a bit more high Macc themselves, we might actually do some purges of our own and get somewhere :greengrin

I believe you and lots of others have no problem with dirty tricks to get rid of the Left, regardless of whether these candidates are guilty of anything, because you don’t think the left can win elections for Labour. You’ve said previously often enough before. Do you agree?

[TrumpIsAPeado]

It's my view that Starmer is very much a part of the same outdated culture that stank throughout the MET under his watch. He's certainly quick to point out certain forms of discrimination (which he isn't wrong to do), but appears to be more hesitant to call out other forms of discrimination (which he is wrong to do). I honestly believe he has a problem with people of specific ethnic groups, much like the Israeli apartheid that he would be very quick to defend.

[archie]

It's my view that Starmer is very much a part of the same outdated culture that stank throughout the MET under his watch. He's certainly quick to point out certain forms of discrimination (which he isn't wrong to do), but appears to be more hesitant to call out other forms of discrimination (which he is wrong to do). I honestly believe he has a problem with people of specific ethnic groups, much like the Israeli apartheid that he would be very quick to defend.

What a smeary post.

[TrumpIsAPeado]

What a smeary post.

Great contribution. Care to point out what you disagree with and the reasons why?

[McD]

It's my view that Starmer is very much a part of the same outdated culture that stank throughout the MET under his watch. He's certainly quick to point out certain forms of discrimination (which he isn't wrong to do), but appears to be more hesitant to call out other forms of discrimination (which he is wrong to do). I honestly believe he has a problem with people of specific ethnic groups, much like the Israeli apartheid that he would be very quick to defend.


apologies if I’m being thick, did starmer have oversight of the met police? Or am I confusing one met with another?

[archie]

Great contribution. Care to point out what you disagree with and the reasons why?

Sometimes you just have to call out nonsense when you see it. But since you ask


t's my view that Starmer is very much a part of the same outdated culture that stank throughout the MET under his watch.
What do you base this on. He wasn't responsible for the Met.
He's certainly quick to point out certain forms of discrimination (which he isn't wrong to do), but appears to be more hesitant to call out other forms of discrimination (which he is wrong to do).
Evidence?
I honestly believe he has a problem with people of specific ethnic groups, much like the Israeli apartheid that he would be very quick to defend.
I know it's boring, but any evidence he's a racist?

[grunt]

apologies if I’m being thick, did starmer have oversight of the met police? Course he didn't. He was DPP, no responsibility for the police.

[McD]

Course he didn't. He was DPP, no responsibility for the police.


cheers :aok: that was what I thought

[Ozyhibby]

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/04/27/keir-starmer-now-opposes-scrapping-westminsters-voting-system-for-pr-in-blow-for-reformers/

Why would he when he can almost taste the elected dictatorship coming his way.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One Day Soon]

Not speaking for anyone else, but I put 2 people on ignore because it was a pain in the backside with them quoting me on every thread in the Holy ground.

They didn’t care what I posted, the fact it was by me was enough for them. Add in the snidely, wide or damn right rude replies and I figured why am I reading this?

Now, they still quote me, but I’ve no idea what they say. I don’t ever click the view reply option. They same posters never quoted me on the main board despite me posting there far more frequently. That’s where it gets a bit stalker-ish. D

So I don’t think it’s down to maturity at all. I’m more than happy to discuss any issue with anyone on here but I’m not into constant arguments. There’s nothing good comes from it and the posters I blocked rarely, if ever, offered their own views on the subject.

I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything and enjoy the break from the constant nagging from them.

I still like posting and reading views from the opposite sides of the arguments and it’s more enjoyable now.


I've never put anyone on ignore, if someone behaves like a prick I just cease responding to them. Sometimes I forget why it originally was that I stopped engaging with any given poster and sometimes I'll pick up with them again if they behave more reasonably. I don't really mind people being pretty robust in any discussion because I can be that way myself, but smart-arsed or abusive crosses the line. And I certainly don't mind if someone calls me out because they feel I've been personal as opposed to having different (usually political) opinions.

Then there are people who I really, really don't agree with politically but who I really like as posters (including on their own political views). There are a few regular pro-Nat posters for example who fall into that category for me, I mean they're wrong but they're decent with it...

Seems to work fine.

[ronaldo7]

Local party activists stitched up in Rutherglen by high command who've helicopter in their preferred candidate. 😲


RUTHERGLEN & HAMILTON WEST: One senior Scottish Labour figure describes shortlist as "a total stitch-up" by the Scottish party high command to install Michael Shanks, "by excluding Leah Stalker, who is the favourite of local members, and Mo Razzaq, who is a popular councillor".

[ronaldo7]

Oh dear. Jess Phillips, tens of thousands of pounds. Just mislaid the invoices I suppose.

A parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into Jess Phillips's declaration of outside earnings.

Last year, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards reprimanded the Labour MP for repeatedly declaring financial interests late.

The watchdog found she breached the MPs' Code of Conduct by "inadvertently" declaring tens of thousands of pounds outside the 28-day deadline

[Kato]

Oh dear. Jess Phillips, tens of thousands of pounds. Just mislaid the invoices I suppose.

A parliamentary watchdog has launched an investigation into Jess Phillips's declaration of outside earnings.

Last year, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards reprimanded the Labour MP for repeatedly declaring financial interests late.

The watchdog found she breached the MPs' Code of Conduct by "inadvertently" declaring tens of thousands of pounds outside the 28-day deadlineDidn't mind her until her "deep friendship" with Rees-Mogg was revealed. Maybe just another grifter.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

As far as I’m concerned, Jess Phillips can get a free pass on late invoices, or being polite to JRM in front of a camera.

Really because she uses part of her time as an MP to make sure there is a single, official, Parliamentary, televised record of this

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lO2d92MTv_0

I bet the pale, male and stale types don’t even listen to the end.

[archie]

Didn't mind her until her "deep friendship" with Rees-Mogg was revealed. Maybe just another grifter.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

He seems to have that effect on people:

'such as when she declares an unexpected liking for Jacob Rees-Mogg. “I could sit and listen to him all day, I disagree with him 99.9% of the time, and that wee percent is just because he’s got good manners. But I love listening to him, his knowledge is incredible, and he’s so polite.”'

Mhairi Black

[Kato]

He seems to have that effect on people:

'such as when she declares an unexpected liking for Jacob Rees-Mogg. “I could sit and listen to him all day, I disagree with him 99.9% of the time, and that wee percent is just because he’s got good manners. But I love listening to him, his knowledge is incredible, and he’s so polite.”'

Mhairi Black

I would probably listen to him as well. I wouldn't develop it any further than that.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

As far as I’m concerned, Jess Phillips can get a free pass on late invoices, or being polite to JRM in front of a camera.

Really because she uses part of her time as an MP to make sure there is a single, official, Parliamentary, televised record of this

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lO2d92MTv_0

I bet the pale, male and stale types don’t even listen to the end.

Earn what you like and don’t declare so long as you do a bit of good now and again. I guess that’s what all these Tory grifters tell themselves as well. That’s how corruption becomes endemic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

As far as I’m concerned, Jess Phillips can get a free pass on late invoices, or being polite to JRM in front of a camera.

Really because she uses part of her time as an MP to make sure there is a single, official, Parliamentary, televised record of this

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lO2d92MTv_0

I bet the pale, male and stale types don’t even listen to the end.Check out Mr Young Gifted and Black.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

When Keir Starmer ran for leader in 2020 he promised to "address the fact that millions vote in safe seats and feel their vote doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed.Now his spokesman tells Byline Times that Starmer is "a long-standing" opponent of PR.

https://t.co/5ZYpPF02LM

[Mibbes Aye]

Check out Mr Young Gifted and Black.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I don't need to be, to call out cheap shots from others :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Earn what you like and don’t declare so long as you do a bit of good now and again. I guess that’s what all these Tory grifters tell themselves as well. That’s how corruption becomes endemic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How much does she earn and what hasn't she declared?

[Kato]

I don't need to be, to call out cheap shots from others :wink:

Cool. I'm learning from a master. :wink:

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://t.co/5ZYpPF02LM

Another u turn.

[marinello59]

He seems to have that effect on people:

'such as when she declares an unexpected liking for Jacob Rees-Mogg. “I could sit and listen to him all day, I disagree with him 99.9% of the time, and that wee percent is just because he’s got good manners. But I love listening to him, his knowledge is incredible, and he’s so polite.”'

Mhairi Black

That’s actually quite refreshing. I like to think that cross party friendships aren’t that uncommon.

[archie]

That’s actually quite refreshing. I like to think that cross party friendships aren’t that uncommon.

I think activists find it much more unpalatable than politicians.

[Mibbes Aye]

It’s highly disingenuous to pretend you have critically assessed the dozens of examples of double standards applied by Labour to exclude candidates that were popular, competent and were going to win for Labour because they were considered too Left wing by Labour front office and come to the conclusion that’s it’s all disgruntled Lefties and thin gruel’. Only an idiot could watch the first two episodes of the AJ documentary and come to that conclusion. I don’t believe you are an idiot.

Some honestly needs to be applied here if this debate is become anything more interesting than the Twitter inspired childish back and forward that I recall you saying you dislike.

There’s a large faction, which controls the levers of power in the Party, that hates the Left. It’s exemplified by Mandelsons 2017 comment that he was ‘working every single day’ to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, his own leader :faf: (can you see that kind of statement being tolerated now in the midst of this Stalinist regime we’re living under?) You have been posting for years and years on here in a similar vein.

It’s not complicated and it’s not something that requires smoke and mirrors. It’s actually not something that needs for anyone to be sheepish or embarrassed about. Destroying competing factions is a big part of the political arena, from Roman times through and exemplified by Machiavelli’s work. And I wish the modern British Left was a bit more high Macc themselves, we might actually do some purges of our own and get somewhere :greengrin

I believe you and lots of others have no problem with dirty tricks to get rid of the Left, regardless of whether these candidates are guilty of anything, because you don’t think the left can win elections for Labour. You’ve said previously often enough before. Do you agree?

I found that an interesting read. There's a lot packed in there.

Your closing question? I'm not sure I quite agree, I think it is more nuanced than that, but I can easily see how it comes across that way. So this is a straight answer, as best I can sum up this evening, no side to it.

I don't think there's a need for dirty tricks. It's not dirty tricks to hold Parliamentary party members to a standard. Or holding would-be PPCs or party members to a standard. And I certainly don't shed any tears for them and this is why.

I know that some of those members make the likelihood of winning power massively more difficult. I really don't like that but that's life I guess.

But what I really have no time for is the hissyfit, self-pitying, self-indulgent hypocrisy that I all too often see from a ragged cast of has-beens, never would have-beens, and not interested in being a beens. And the way they project it from some imaginary sanctimonious, holier-than-thou pedestal. Because posturing is easier than actually doing the work of making difficult real-life choices that governing entails. I know I've said that before often enough. And I know I've said this before, that some within the ranks would rather trot out tired old cliches and make life more difficult for their 'own' side than the real opposition.

Add that to those who seek to hi-jack the party from without, to impose their skewed, unrealistic and prehistoric worldview because LAbour gives them a vehicle to do so - they can do one as well. But for as long as the party has existed and certainly all my life, in different forms, it has been vulnerable to entryists who don't have the support in their own right and see Labour as a vehicle for their own ideology.

I have no qualms about doing whatever it takes (legally) to get power out of the hands of the Tories. They have thrived on the chance to portray Labour as extremist and they have no hesitation in deploying lies and smears, let alone the sheer effrontery of their attempts at ballot-fixing with voter ID. But I expect that from them. My tolerance level of those who undermine the party from our supposed own side are low though and that's because of their behaviours in doing so.

[Mibbes Aye]

Cool. I'm learning from a master. :wink:

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Correct. I am good at calling out cheap shots. I've honed my skills on here :greengrin

[He's here!]

That’s actually quite refreshing. I like to think that cross party friendships aren’t that uncommon.

Alex Salmond and David Davis are good pals. Even Blackford admitted not so long ago that he has Tory friends.

[Kato]

Correct. I am good at calling out cheap shots. I've honed my skills on here :greengrinYeah. Skills.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn't have you down as this threads policeman. I've spent plenty of time on this thread as I have others on the holy ground. Do I now have restricted access, just because you don't like your Labour party held to account.

Behave yourself. I merely observed that you seemed to be commenting more on Labour, often trivially, than on the SNP and asked whether that was because the SNP weren't exactly bathing themselves in glory. If you've experienced any problems with restricted access then that's nothing to do with me.

And if I was police I think I would be too busy on Operation Branchform than reading your posts. Thats where the real police work is required :greengrin




This information is from actual Labour members. They're clearly stating that theirs a hierarchy of racism in your party. I'd have thought that would have been something you'd have been worried about, and at least acknowledged.

Then again, maybe no.

I'm an actual Labour member too. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I know other Labour members. Without wishing to speak for others, there is a general consensus that Starmer was right to launch the Forde inquiry into what was going on 2014-2019 and the party was right to publicly share its implementation plan to deal with Forde's recommendations.

Just as a treat for you, I've said I don't think the implementation plan is as strong as it could have been. It could/should have been SMARTer across the whole piece and there's more passive tense at the expense of active tense for my liking.

[Mibbes Aye]

Alex Salmond and David Davis are good pals. Even Blackford admitted not so long ago that he has Tory friends.

Blackford was an investment banker and spent a couple of decades in international finance. I would be astonished if he didn't know a good few Tories, whether MPs or donors or the like.

[Mibbes Aye]

Did you read them? I can't fathom your dismissal of Forde"s comments. As you say, Starmer appointed him and has carried out many of his recommendations. Yet Forde last month states:

"Forde told Al Jazeera: “Anti-black racism and Islamophobia is not taken as seriously as antisemitism within the Labour party, that’s the perception that has come through.” He added: “My slight anxiety is that in terms of hierarchy, and genuine underlying concerns about wider racial issues, it’s not in my view a sufficient response to say that was then, this is now.”

I'm not the one saying these things - Forde is.

And I didn't dismiss Forde. I dismissed the rehashing of him to crudely support an argument.



Here is another quote:

"A number of Labour MPs have voiced concern over the party’s engagement with the Forde report."

It goes on to directly cite a number of Labour MPs who share these concerns.

A number of Labour MPs wanted to condemn NATO as 'eastern expansionists' and sharing some culpability for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That didn't make them right. I think given the fever within the party over the last eight years it is entirely reasonable to question the motivations and the evidence base of anyone (and yes, I mean anyone) putting their view out there.



your third paragraph. You've backed up exactly what I am saying - Starmer has such a focus on anti semitism that he is less interested in other forms of racism. This is literally a prime example of what I'm saying. Comments were made that were offensive to Jewish people, travellers and the Irish. But Starmer is really only interested, and only talks about impact on one of those groups. Yes he wants to made particularly clear that he is dealing with anti semitism in the party but again, what he is doing is taking that as the priority, not racism against other groups.

You've put a lot of assumptions about Starmer in there. But your final point is simply, irrefutably wrong. He committed early doors to legislation to tackle structural racism. If that is drafted and implemented correctly, that instantly becomes one of the landmark laws of all the Labour governments. That means recognising that there is a need and a method to outlaw and tackle the power imbalances that sit underneath structural discrimination. Things like addressing institutional racism would be swept up within all of that. If it is drafted right and enacted and implemented properly.


, of course hierarchies of racism is not official Labour policy. I don't think Starmer is racist but he has (understandably) seen the need to tackle anti semitism strongly. Fine and I support him on that. But the challenge is that is sees that, due to image, as being more of a serious issue than other forms of racism. So in practice a hierarchy of racism.

So he is fine, until the bit where you've decided what he thinks.......

[neil7908]

And I didn't dismiss Forde. I dismissed the rehashing of him to crudely support an argument.




A number of Labour MPs wanted to condemn NATO as 'eastern expansionists' and sharing some culpability for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. That didn't make them right. I think given the fever within the party over the last eight years it is entirely reasonable to question the motivations and the evidence base of anyone (and yes, I mean anyone) putting their view out there.




You've put a lot of assumptions about Starmer in there. But your final point is simply, irrefutably wrong. He committed early doors to legislation to tackle structural racism. If that is drafted and implemented correctly, that instantly becomes one of the landmark laws of all the Labour governments. That means recognising that there is a need and a method to outlaw and tackle the power imbalances that sit underneath structural discrimination. Things like addressing institutional racism would be swept up within all of that. If it is drafted right and enacted and implemented properly.



So he is fine, until the bit where you've decided what he thinks.......

How can it be rehashing Forde when the article I quoted is from last month? Have his concerns been addressed? If not then I I think that dig about "crudely" supporting my argument is totally unfair. I can't think of a more relevant and recent piece of evidence, whereas you are quoting a Labour announcement from 2.5 years ago.

In terms of questioning MPs motivations, you are skirting around this. Nato is irrelevant here. We are talking about race. I am quoting MPs saying they have concerns that have not been addressed. Are you suggesting these MPs are making things up? Are they lying about Labours action on this to cause trouble? As that appears to be the argument you are making but you just don't want to say it.

You have suggested I have made a lot of assumptions. Yet you have made plenty of your own about the motivations of those expressing concerns, and also have repeatedly stated twice "if that is drafted and implemented correctly". Is that not an assumption?

[ronaldo7]

Behave yourself. I merely observed that you seemed to be commenting more on Labour, often trivially, than on the SNP and asked whether that was because the SNP weren't exactly bathing themselves in glory. If you've experienced any problems with restricted access then that's nothing to do with me.

And if I was police I think I would be too busy on Operation Branchform than reading your posts. Thats where the real police work is required :greengrin





I'm an actual Labour member too. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I know other Labour members. Without wishing to speak for others, there is a general consensus that Starmer was right to launch the Forde inquiry into what was going on 2014-2019 and the party was right to publicly share its implementation plan to deal with Forde's recommendations.

Just as a treat for you, I've said I don't think the implementation plan is as strong as it could have been. It could/should have been SMARTer across the whole piece and there's more passive tense at the expense of active tense for my liking.


In your usual condescending style you brush away other views on your party as nonsense or having to behave. The Labour files are hardly trivial. They bring the Labour party into disrepute on many issues, and clearly identify a hierarchy of racism. I've just finished the fourth video where the party is actively spying on local journalists and it goes right up to the shadow secretary of state for justice for comment. Ooft.

So much for transparency and democracy, when local party councillors can be wiped from the party by people outwith the party colluding with Starmers henchmen.

These guys have been in your party all their working lives.

Take off your red tinted glasses before you view this one. I'll post the last one later on if your stomach can handle it. :aok:

https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/

[Mibbes Aye]

How can it be rehashing Forde when the article I quoted is from last month? Have his concerns been addressed? If not then I I think that dig about "crudely" supporting my argument is totally unfair. I can't think of a more relevant and recent piece of evidence, whereas you are quoting a Labour announcement from 2.5 years ago.

In terms of questioning MPs motivations, you are skirting around this. Nato is irrelevant here. We are talking about race. I am quoting MPs saying they have concerns that have not been addressed. Are you suggesting these MPs are making things up? Are they lying about Labours action on this to cause trouble? As that appears to be the argument you are making but you just don't want to say it.

You have suggested I have made a lot of assumptions. Yet you have made plenty of your own about the motivations of those expressing concerns, and also have repeatedly stated twice "if that is drafted and implemented correctly". Is that not an assumption?

No, of course it isn't, it is a caveat. Caveats and assumptions are very different things.

As for your first paragraph, Labour commissioned Forde and published a plan to address the recommendations within it. Do you have trouble recognising that? Ignoring that but focusing on the reasons why Labour called for the inquiry is rehashing it.

As for your second paragraph I'm more than happy to say there are some MPs who will misrepresent rheir so-called party for their own ends, that is demonstrable. And I'm under no illusions that this may involve 'making things up'. Though to be honest, I would expect that's the case in any party.

[Mibbes Aye]

In your usual condescending style you brush away other views on your party as nonsense or having to behave. The Labour files are hardly trivial. They bring the Labour party into disrepute on many issues, and clearly identify a hierarchy of racism. I've just finished the fourth video where the party is actively spying on local journalists and it goes right up to the shadow secretary of state for justice for comment. Ooft.

So much for transparency and democracy, when local party councillors can be wiped from the party by people outwith the party colluding with Starmers henchmen.

These guys have been in your party all their working lives.

Take off your red tinted glasses before you view this one. I'll post the last one later on if your stomach can handle it. :aok:

https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/

You do like to call me condescending, don't you. For what it's worth, I think that's a very big word to use and you spelled it ever so well, so you should give yourself a well-earned pat on the back :agree: :greengrin

The worst thing in all this is your desperation to stay as far away as possible from the complete and utter ****show engulfing your own party. Flailing about, trying to throw as much muck as possible at anything. If it wasn't this it would be something else, anything else. Anything other than the stark reality of choosing to own or condemn what's been going on inside the Sturgeonbunker.

Anyway, racism, and discrimination more broadly, is wrong and should be tackled head on. I'm glad Starmer commissioned the Forde report into what was going on between 2014 and 2019, glad the report and the recommendations were published, glad the plan to tackle them was published. That is really important in addressing wrongs and preventing them recurring. It's not edifying to see evidence of wrongdoing in one''s own party but it is worse to pretend it doesn't exist, you know what I mean?

As for my stomach, it's kind of you to enquire. I did hear myself saying "Oh my sides!" at times when I first saw the AJ documentary. It's hardly the pinnacle of journalism is it? An ensemble cast of the discredited and disgruntled trampling all over anyone who may have reasonable grounds to complain. And all filmed by what I'm guessing was a struggling SCOTVEC media studies student, going by the lighting and the soundtrack. My favourite was the bit where someone exclaimed "Labour has conducted a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY!!!" Right then :rolleyes:.

Funnily enough I Googled to remind myself of the AJ report, I think I typed in something along the lines of 'Al Jazeera', 'Labour' and 'Files'. The hits on the first page were to AJ (not unreasonably), the Morning Star Online and Anti-Capitalist Resistance. That's some traction.

[ronaldo7]

You do like to call me condescending, don't you. For what it's worth, I think that's a very big word to use and you spelled it ever so well, so you should give yourself a well-earned pat on the back :agree: :greengrin

The worst thing in all this is your desperation to stay as far away as possible from the complete and utter ****show engulfing your own party. Flailing about, trying to throw as much muck as possible at anything. If it wasn't this it would be something else, anything else. Anything other than the stark reality of choosing to own or condemn what's been going on inside the Sturgeonbunker.

Anyway, racism, and discrimination more broadly, is wrong and should be tackled head on. I'm glad Starmer commissioned the Forde report into what was going on between 2014 and 2019, glad the report and the recommendations were published, glad the plan to tackle them was published. That is really important in addressing wrongs and preventing them recurring. It's not edifying to see evidence of wrongdoing in one''s own party but it is worse to pretend it doesn't exist, you know what I mean?

As for my stomach, it's kind of you to enquire. I did hear myself saying "Oh my sides!" at times when I first saw the AJ documentary. It's hardly the pinnacle of journalism is it? An ensemble cast of the discredited and disgruntled trampling all over anyone who may have reasonable grounds to complain. And all filmed by what I'm guessing was a struggling SCOTVEC media studies student, going by the lighting and the soundtrack. My favourite was the bit where someone exclaimed "Labour has conducted a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY!!!" Right then :rolleyes:.

Funnily enough I Googled to remind myself of the AJ report, I think I typed in something along the lines of 'Al Jazeera', 'Labour' and 'Files'. The hits on the first page were to AJ (not unreasonably), the Morning Star Online and Anti-Capitalist Resistance. That's some traction.

:faf:

I see you've reached for the BIG BRUSH. :greengrin

No need to worry about mud sticking, theirs plenty more where that came from.

Back to the discussion at hand, a hierarchy of racism in the Labour party. It seems even Forde himself wondered how AJ got more files than him. Cover up by party insiders has to be the best bet for that one. You're right on one thing though, traction is not what it should be given the thousands of pounds that Starmer has thrown away in legal fees.

Maybe the party should recompense the members as it's not them to blame for being run by a dysfunctional and dishonest regime. :wink:

The last link I promised. I thought I'd keep my word, unlike your Knight. :greengrin

https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/

[Mibbes Aye]

:faf:

I see you've reached for the BIG BRUSH. :greengrin

No need to worry about mud sticking, theirs plenty more where that came from.

Back to the discussion at hand, a hierarchy of racism in the Labour party. It seems even Forde himself wondered how AJ got more files than him. Cover up by party insiders has to be the best bet for that one. You're right on one thing though, traction is not what it should be given the thousands of pounds that Starmer has thrown away in legal fees.

Maybe the party should recompense the members as it's not them to blame for being run by a dysfunctional and dishonest regime. :wink:

The last link I promised. I thought I'd keep my word, unlike your Knight. :greengrin

https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/

You so have the fear of Labour don't you :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

You so have the fear of Labour don't you :greengrin

Pure shakin in ma boots so a um. :wink:

Members bailing out left, left and centre, leaving the right to take the fight to the other right in Blue. :greengrin

It looks like they've helicoptered another right winger into Glasgow. :flying:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65436301

Two Labour constituency parties have made a formal complaint about the selection process for two key Scottish seats.

The constituency parties of Rutherglen and Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have written to Sir Keir Starmer and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar.

They say they have been "inundated" with complaints by local members about a "lack of transparency".

The Scottish Labour Party said the process was properly administered.

In the letter, seen by the BBC, the Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) claim that members are concerned about the "integrity" of selections and say they "cannot continue campaigning until this matter is resolved". They also say there has been a "lack of involvement of local members

[Mibbes Aye]

Pure shakin in ma boots so a um. :wink:

Members bailing out left, left and centre, leaving the right to take the fight to the other right in Blue. :greengrin

It looks like they've helicoptered another right winger into Glasgow. :flying:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65436301

Two Labour constituency parties have made a formal complaint about the selection process for two key Scottish seats.

The constituency parties of Rutherglen and Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have written to Sir Keir Starmer and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar.

They say they have been "inundated" with complaints by local members about a "lack of transparency".

The Scottish Labour Party said the process was properly administered.

In the letter, seen by the BBC, the Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) claim that members are concerned about the "integrity" of selections and say they "cannot continue campaigning until this matter is resolved". They also say there has been a "lack of involvement of local members

I like how you post the link then copy and paste the contents of the link. We could probably train a bot to do that :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I like how you post the link then copy and paste the contents of the link. We could probably train a bot to do that :greengrin

Aye, but you wouldn't get the important bits in BOLD

Just for TRANSPARENCY :greengrin and I know you sometimes just pass over the links. :aok:

Enjoy the rest of the week end.

[Mibbes Aye]

Aye, but you wouldn't get the important bits in BOLD

Just for TRANSPARENCY :greengrin and I know you sometimes just pass over the links. :aok:

Enjoy the rest of the week end.

I think everything you say is important, I'm surprised you would think otherwise.

And remember, the Labour Party is always here for you. I know you want more autonomy for Scotland and Labour is the only party who've actually delivered anything in that regard.

Have a good one too.

[Just Alf]

I like how you post the link then copy and paste the contents of the link. We could probably train a bot to do that :greengrinTo be fair.. on the pet peeves thread folks not doing that were getting called out for forcing us to click links.

[Mibbes Aye]

To be fair.. on the pet peeves thread folks not doing that were getting called out for forcing us to click links.

That is admittedly a million times worse.

But I would still rather read someone's own interpretation of whatever it is, you feel like you are talking to a real person. And in fairness to R7, he usually does mix it up with some of his own particular posting style. That's not true of everyone though. Damning indictment on society in my mind. O rempora o mores :rolleyes: :greengrin

[Just Alf]

That is admittedly a million times worse.

But I would still rather read someone's own interpretation of whatever it is, you feel like you are talking to a real person. And in fairness to R7, he usually does mix it up with some of his own particular posting style. That's not true of everyone though. Damning indictment on society in my mind. O rempora o mores :rolleyes: :greengrinWon't disagree on the above post :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

I think everything you say is important, I'm surprised you would think otherwise.

And remember, the Labour Party is always here for you. I know you want more autonomy for Scotland and Labour is the only party who've actually delivered anything in that regard.

Have a good one too.

Are you saying the Smith commission didn’t do that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Are you saying the Smith commission didn’t do that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Smith Commission made adjustments to the powers that had been delivered by a Labour government. No Devolution Act, then no Smith Commission.

[Ozyhibby]

https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1652609033012928513?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour supporters must be so proud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1652609033012928513?s=46&t=3pb_w_qndxJXScFNwz8V4A

Labour supporters must be so proud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who should take responsibilities for the failings of the state, especially when one party has been in charge for years and years?

[Ozyhibby]

Who should take responsibilities for the failings of the state, especially when one party has been in charge for years and years?

Won’t be long before they are just shouting peado at each other like a pair of teen footy fans. Classy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Won’t be long before they are just shouting peado at each other like a pair of teen footy fans. Classy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Running dry on substantive criticisms of policy are we? 😂

[Ozyhibby]

Running dry on substantive criticisms of policy are we? [emoji23]

Labour has a policy?[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Labour has a policy?[emoji102]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You probably stopped paying attention as soon as you heard 'No deal with the SNP' :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

never let the Scottish public forget :agree:

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/343602135_530722872604051_8660343254106118387_n.jp g?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=FRUtvmh6i3cAX9Zwk6I&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfB2eWaYtfF_wMCLeM6ZKKGOyKzI3OFLyiQRA0_39yZ8 Kw&oe=6452C24B

[archie]

never let the Scottish public forget :agree:

https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/343602135_530722872604051_8660343254106118387_n.jp g?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=FRUtvmh6i3cAX9Zwk6I&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfB2eWaYtfF_wMCLeM6ZKKGOyKzI3OFLyiQRA0_39yZ8 Kw&oe=6452C24B
And yet...
https://theferret.scot/private-finance-schemes-audit-scotland/

[cabbageandribs1875]

And yet...
https://theferret.scot/private-finance-schemes-audit-scotland/

again

This is what Labour's PPP is costing Glasgow. This is a screenshot from their own final accounts, March 2017, just weeks before they got booted out

.https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/344567173_538083855185372_9120771122454428145_n.jp g?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=3pxVZuXLSG0AX8FhN1y&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBl6GK1nEufgttpXEYA3YPR_OeRZ51XoKeyDwzFNhCt NQ&oe=6453ECBB

[cabbageandribs1875]

And yet...
https://theferret.scot/private-finance-schemes-audit-scotland/


£30 billion: The cost of Labour's toxic PFI legacy to Scotland | HeraldScotland (https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14432710.30-billion-cost-labours-toxic-pfi-legacy-scotland/)

[archie]

again

This is what Labour's PPP is costing Glasgow. This is a screenshot from their own final accounts, March 2017, just weeks before they got booted out

.https://scontent.fman1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/344567173_538083855185372_9120771122454428145_n.jp g?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=3pxVZuXLSG0AX8FhN1y&_nc_ht=scontent.fman1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBl6GK1nEufgttpXEYA3YPR_OeRZ51XoKeyDwzFNhCt NQ&oe=6453ECBB

Did you read the Ferret article?