Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Truth is those who vehemently denied their focus on anti-semetism was political have now proven it was so. I don't think they really care that its now obvious because they've already achieved their aim.
There's nothing to be won from focusing on racism at large in the party so they don't care. Take the below who not only is he still in the party somehow but he's got a promotion to the MP candidate replacing Hodge.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...odwell-had-worst-tan-possible-for-a-black-man
In fairness, while I think that is a factor, I think there is a very genuine heirachy of racism, both within politics and within the country as a whole.
It's obviously understandable why antisemitism has a particular sensibility within European cultures but there is an acceptable of islamophobia in particular but also anti black, south Asian and east Asian racism that is not as socially acceptable as anti semitism.
Just going off the points made to me by many posters on this issue that tell me their Councils are moving very slowly or not at all in providing information on available ID. My own council have been excellent on this sending out separate leaflets on ID changes, also information along with Council Tax info, on what ID is acceptable and even adverts in the local papers, giving more information about this change and.... surprise surprise, it is a Labour Council with overwhelmingly high numbers of seats (might even be better than Boris's 80+ seat majority)...to boot! Doing the Tories dirty work for them eh?
Your right though, I must be dim in giving credence to what's being churned out in some quarters of the Caf, on this topic.
Again, I don't understand your point, or if you even have one here.
Don't know why you seem so proud that your council is having to waste time, money and resources on this either. Especially during our current economic situation. If they have been excellent doing this, the chances are that they could have been doing other things well instead that actually help your community.
Yea I agree with this.
The pro-Zionist/Israel lobby is very powerful as well - that's part of it too. I mean they've pretty much successfully managed to file any complaint about Israel as antisemitic, and get BDS tarred as antisemitic in some countries (I think UK is one of them).
On the bolded - did you mean this as the other way round?
Yes sorry, that will teach me to type and walk while doing something else too.
The post was also meant to say acceptance, not acceptable.
Moohan v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67
Lord Hodge:
[34] I do not think that the common law has been developed so as to recognise a right of universal and equal suffrage from which any derogation must be provided for by law and must be proportionate. … It has … been our constitutional history that for centuries the right to vote has been derived from statute. The UK Parliament through its legislation has controlled and controls the modalities of the expression of democracy. It is not appropriate for the courts to develop the common law in order to supplement or override the statutory rules which determine our democratic franchise … I am satisfied that there is no common law right of universal and equal suffrage …
Tl;dr There is no constitutional right to vote in the UK. If Parliament restricts it or changes it, it cannot be challenged.
Lord Hodge:
[34] I do not think that the common law has been developed so as to recognise a right of universal and equal suffrage from which any derogation must be provided for by law and must be proportionate. … It has … been our constitutional history that for centuries the right to vote has been derived from statute. The UK Parliament through its legislation has controlled and controls the modalities of the expression of democracy. It is not appropriate for the courts to develop the common law in order to supplement or override the statutory rules which determine our democratic franchise … I am satisfied that there is no common law right of universal and equal suffrage …
Tl;dr There is no constitutional right to vote in the UK. If Parliament restricts it or changes it, it cannot be challenged.
Yes, I think I have already worked that out, you will need to read all the previous posts to me and from me to others, to understand.
However, in summary my basic point is;
That having to provide information to prove who you are is nothing new, it applies in many areas of life and so should apply in something as important as exercising your right to vote and it is not an unduly onerous task.
However, In the absence of a national identify card, (which various governments have considered and then rejected for various reasons) one reason being there is already sufficient forms of acceptable ID in existence the government having made this a condition for voting, have then listed all the forms of ID it will accept for this purpose and for those people who for one reason or another do not have any of these ID formats, it has said they will issue a FREE Voting Authority Certificate.
I would also add, that whilst as many have pointed out in these various posts, levels of fraud existing currently in voting is found to be low; however going forward as we all know much personal information is stored about us (some we know about, probably some we don't) hence this it is the first attempt (I feel) to protect our system of voting from becoming vulnerable to manipulation. I do feel there will be more onerous tasks implemented in the future to safeguard our democratic system, and would encourage those who are eligible to vote who feel themselves to be vulnerable under this new criteria, to take advantage of the FREE Voting Authority Certificate offer and not only exercise your vote, but begin to save yourself more really onerous tasks later on.
Sorry but
Don't feel sorry, I'm glad I made you laugh you obviously see the brighter side of life!
I was referring to not understanding your point in the post that I actually replied to, not your overall view.
What is your point below?
Sorry I really did misunderstand your point!
I was replying to a post essentially about Councils being overworked and or Councils deliberately not sending out sufficient information on these changes and by doing so not alerting enough people to what they had to do confirm their identity.
I quoted my own council as being one which I thought had acted in an excellent manner, even though it was a Labour controlled Council and who were thought to be against the government on this issue.
Just because they are against the government on the issue doesn't mean that they wouldn't or shouldn't get the information out there. If anything it is more likely that tory controlled councils would be less worred about the information being spread as a lower turnout tends to be in their interests.
I would just rather my council workers be spending their limited resources and time doing things to help my community. But if you think this is money well spent then that's fair enough I suppose.
This is true, and if the opposite is found to occur it is probably only encountered through indolence or poor administration.
Councils exist to support and to inform local population on changes introduced by Government that are enacted at local level, so yes this should be a priority for any Council.
I guess we just disagree on the motives behind this change to the requirements to vote. Makes having a conversation on the outworking of it pretty fruitless. Will leave it there.
Ultimately if the government is going to make having ID a requirement to vote, it is their responsibility to ensure that ID is provided, free of charge/hassle, to every eligible voter. Anything other than that is de facto disenfranchisement on a scale which far outstrips that of the problem they're purporting to solve. Of course, they know that, which is why they're doing it.
And this should end all debate on the matter.
He's feigning ignorance. He knows perfectly well there is no need for voter ID other than for discouraging voters. He's just partly arrogant enough to think his opinion matters more than the people's who will be disenfranchised, and partly on a wind up. Best to ignore him at this point I think.
“Wrong time to increase”
“Wrong time to increase”
To be entirely fair, France does have a significantly lower retirement age than Britain already.
Thank goodness, for a second I was worried that Labour would bring unearned income tax in line with the tax we all pay.
Can't be doing that, it might upset the important people.
Yes that's best ... whispering behind the 'two sheds' eh!
Have a good day both of you.
She's scum, just like her boss.
Could go in a few threads this but definitely worth a listen. Adam Curtis comparing the collapse of 1980's Soviet Union to present day UK.
If you can't listen to the whole thing skip to the chunk between 6 mins in and 9 mins. Basically says the country is stuck in a loop of going back to the same politics and policies that caused Brexit in the first place and simply aren't working (and everyone knows it).
If you can't listen to the whole thing skip to the chunk between 6 mins in and 9 mins. Basically says the country is stuck in a loop of going back to the same politics and policies that caused Brexit in the first place and simply aren't working (and everyone knows it).
Why do gay and lesbians get assumed to be part of the trans community. Never understand that. The desire/need to change your sex has nothing to do with rights based on your sexuality other than the fact it had the same first three letters in
If they announce plans to close libraries and forced branding of benefit claimants maybe they'll be the sort of party people can finally vote for. A race to the bottom if ever there was one.
Neoliberal dystopia
Calorie counts on beer pumps would help drinkers, says Labour frontbencher
Calorie counts on beer pumps would help drinkers, says Labour frontbencher
To annoy you, probably.
What's more depressing is that this is probably considered a radical proposal in the Shadow Cabinet.
I've never ever seen this assumption. Whenever a celeb or athlete comes out as gay I never think "oh so they are part of the trans community" or if I see some legislation or political rhetoric that specifically adversely affects trans people I don't worry how it might directly affect gay and lesbian friends and colleagues.
I would actually find it quite weird if this assumption was ever made, by anyone, anywhere, ever.
In fact it is quite a noticeable point of demarcation for both those who support the fight for trans rights and those who openly oppose trans people. Some of the often cited so called radical feminists that advocate for trans exclusion often deliberately identify as lesbian.
If anything the opposite exists and trans representation has traditionally been emergent in gay/lesbian/queer communities. If you want to educate yourself on this you should have a look at the history of the gay and lesbian scenes in 60s New York and LA that had had a huge political and cultural influence on trans and gender identity as viewed today. Stonewall and Cooper Donuts riots are famous flash point but looking at the cultural scenes prior to that episode will help illuminate things for you.
Perhaps mine is the grown ups perspective though given that gay and lesbian community and culture have been well established over preceeding decades and trans identity as a mainstream politically recognised grouping is comparatively new. Young children perhaps like yourself (I don't know how old you are) growing up today might confuse trans communities as more prominent due to the current political climate.
You should also educate yourself on how gay and lesbian groups from as early as the beginning of the 1900s called on political alliance to advance civil rights. And why divisive nit-picking divide and conquer rhetoric harms people.
Surely this is Starmer heading Sunak 'off at the pass' or if you prefer 'circling Sunak's wagons', or in Tory terms, 'shooting Sunak's fox'
We might just get a landslide Labour victory yet!!
As we all know, when Labour made a decision to outflank the Tories to the right on immigration and asylum following the 2001 election, it was hugely popular, it completely placated the right and we've been able to have sober, fact-driven conversations about these topics ever since...
You can only cater to the electorate you're given, I suppose
As a consequence of this post my spleen has just exploded due to a critical sarcasm overload.
With who? ....Will you ever get such discussions in British politics... well any politics anywhere for that matter?
Do the vast majority of the public want to have such discussions? will they ever?
Starmer knows this time, and unlike Blair, he does not have to promise anything to anybody. The Tories are in a mess, to use an old adage they are ... 'blown out', 'pow-fagged' and 'jigged'. Starmer just needs to 'go with the flow' to get a massive majority, he then arrives in power beholding to nobody, left or right.
Then let's see what an unconstrained Labour landslide government can do?