You mean like how it was ignored for ages by Corbyn & his acolytes because it wasn't, erm, convenient?
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
What she said wasn't antisemitic. That's what I'm discussing here. The reaction or oversensitivity (especially when it's coming from left leaning Labour members) is what I'm accusing Keir of overreacting with.
If Diane Abbott had said something that was genuinely malicious and antisemitic you won't find me defending her.
Saying she believes that there is a racial hierarchy with black racism at the top isn't antisemitic.
Read my posts in the thread.
I said from the go that you can't be seen trying to rank racism as a politician. It's not a good look.
What she actually said wasn't antisemitic or anti-traveller, or anti-gypsy. It's just an extremely clumsily worded sentiment.
Edit: I'm going to be accused of whataboutery here, but our last Prime Minister (the one that lasted longer than a year) literally called Muslim women letterboxes, and black people picanninies and he led the country ffs.
So all of this is just political pointscoring and posturing from Keir.
https://amp.theguardian.com/society...o-educate-boys-to-curb-violence-against-women
Another one of those self-evidently good policies if we want to get rid of the horrific violence against women and girls that happens on a daily basis.
Another one of those self-evidently good policies if we want to get rid of the horrific violence against women and girls that happens on a daily basis.
I think this is the same with Islamophobia as well, certain types of subtle racism or framing is allowed but others are not.
As well, more visible race focused discrimination is more understandable.
Alas I don't think some sort of racism Olympics is the way to go.
Ah okay yeah that qualifies, brain skipped over that thought she'd just mentioned travellers. She really is the worst spokesperson for her causes.
If her point was that skin colour racism was the most prevalent and institutionalised she'd have a point. It really shouldn't be difficult for her to articulate that though.
No.
Her comment boils down to - if it's coloured based prejudice it should be called racism.
If it's not colour based - it should be called prejudice. Including redheads in prejudice faced by Jewish, Irish and travellers is the extremely clumsy point she's making. Her rationale being if people of the same colour are being prejudice to one another then it's prejudice and not racism. (Fwiw - I disagree with her and the prejudice vs racism as words to use, as it's all the same in my mind).
She literally starts by saying that there's a demarcation of racism and prejudice being used interchangeably when they shouldn't.
I'd suggest you read what she wrote again because that's not what I took from it.
It's all about colour based = racism. If it's not colour based, then it should be classed as prejudice.
Not sure that's a particularly appropriate comment, there's plenty of distinctions in institutionalised racism without harping back to slavery.
She's fundamentally wrong in her assessment anyway. Her own party consider both anti-semtisim and islamaphobia to be forms of racism.
And her examples of prejudice are all same colour examples. She literally mentions white people’s experience of prejudice as a counter example.
That shows, implicitly, that her framing view of racism is solely on colour.
Forget anti-semitism and how she phrased it, what she really meant is that she thinks racism against black people is a more important issue than that experienced by other minorities, and she was trying to use her platform to convince other people of that.
I'd say that's pretty malicious personally.
Have to disagree with that.
It's straight out of the antisemitic playbook - or she has become incredibly dumb.
Diane Abbott's argument is incoherent, and the way she's worded it is bizarre. I don't think there's any definition by which you could reasonably claim that Jews, Travellers/Romani and Irish people haven't been subject to racism.
If there's a point to be made, it's that racism can manifest in various ways. Different groups experience it differently and members of the same group experience it differently based on where they live/work, who they interact with, how visible they are, how their race intersects with other aspects of their lives etc. But if that's the argument being made, it's being made very badly and, obviously, drawing a circle around the specific experience of black people (as if it's really possible to do so in such a blanket way) and saying that everything outside of that isn't "real" racism is a very bad take.
It's perfectly acceptable to say that there are various aspects of racism black people in the UK/US experience or have experienced that Irish, Jewish or Romani/Traveller people don't or haven't. It's absolutely possible to make that point without claiming that those groups don't experience racism at all.
If there's a point to be made, it's that racism can manifest in various ways. Different groups experience it differently and members of the same group experience it differently based on where they live/work, who they interact with, how visible they are, how their race intersects with other aspects of their lives etc. But if that's the argument being made, it's being made very badly and, obviously, drawing a circle around the specific experience of black people (as if it's really possible to do so in such a blanket way) and saying that everything outside of that isn't "real" racism is a very bad take.
It's perfectly acceptable to say that there are various aspects of racism black people in the UK/US experience or have experienced that Irish, Jewish or Romani/Traveller people don't or haven't. It's absolutely possible to make that point without claiming that those groups don't experience racism at all.
There is an irony in the fact that the English and British very much used a hierarchy of racism in order to justify the slave trade and colonialism around the world.
Isn't the Old Testament (practically) a history of Jewish slavery at the hands of Egyptians/Pharaohs?
I'm Canadian, not British, but as a Jew I don't really know if I would say I've been "subject to racism" my entire life. On the most basic level, no I absolutely haven't. A few comments and a slightly elevated threat of violence at synagogues, though more of a concern in the U.S. On the other hand, my grandparents were survivors and our family is full of trauma and guilt and missing entire branches of it due to the holocaust and racism (or whatever you wanna call it).
But surely Travellers/Romani are subject to racism, right? The Europeans who move to Canada often talk of them in just viscerally hateful ways that are really shocking to our ears. Real dehumanizing stuff. And reading about their treatment in France, it just seems like they are?
But surely Travellers/Romani are subject to racism, right? The Europeans who move to Canada often talk of them in just viscerally hateful ways that are really shocking to our ears. Real dehumanizing stuff. And reading about their treatment in France, it just seems like they are?
Diane Abbott’s comments in response to that article were dumb and untrue… but the overreaction is beyond ridiculous.
It just feeds in to this performative anti racism we now have. We can all jump on someone who misspoke and apologised as a means to show what brilliant anti racists we are. Let’s all bash them and throw our faux outrage around… whilst ignoring real systemic racism that negatively impacts the lives of minorities in this country every single day.
You’ll see just as much, if not more discourse on Diane’s crap letter than you’ll hear about institutional racism in the Met police. But at least it will allow loads of media hypocrites to wear their anti racism badge proudly for a week.
It just feeds in to this performative anti racism we now have. We can all jump on someone who misspoke and apologised as a means to show what brilliant anti racists we are. Let’s all bash them and throw our faux outrage around… whilst ignoring real systemic racism that negatively impacts the lives of minorities in this country every single day.
You’ll see just as much, if not more discourse on Diane’s crap letter than you’ll hear about institutional racism in the Met police. But at least it will allow loads of media hypocrites to wear their anti racism badge proudly for a week.
Big policy update!
To get elected you have to tell people what they want to hear, not what you think they should hear.
Starmer (at last) has now joined a long list of political (Tory and Labour) Party leaders who wanted to become PM, in understanding what it takes to achieve that goal.
Come to think of it I cannot remember many past political leaders, who prior to becoming PM, told people what they didn't want to hear. I can think of lots of them that when they became PM, telling it....as it is!
Starmer (at last) has now joined a long list of political (Tory and Labour) Party leaders who wanted to become PM, in understanding what it takes to achieve that goal.
Come to think of it I cannot remember many past political leaders, who prior to becoming PM, told people what they didn't want to hear. I can think of lots of them that when they became PM, telling it....as it is!
How you can so easily assume, after the Brexit protest vote and decades of voter fatigue with the FPTP system, that voters wouldn't want some kind of reform, is beyond me.
Yet another flip flop.
What an absolute weapon.
Most people don't care and Brexit vote was a yes/no vote anyway. Keir Starmer dropping the idea like a hot brick when he's now gone a chance of winning a majority (though I don't think he will) is as annoying as it is expected.
*edit* don't want to get into it today. Deleted
Last edited:
There is zero possibility of any party wanting PR if they believe they can win an election outright. Supporters of PR need to support a smaller party that has a chance of holding the balance of power in a pact or coalition. The Libs nearly did it with Cameron's referendum but they were too stupid to stipulate what sort of PR people would be voting for, so they lost. As the far left are incapable of forming any sort of party that leaves you with the Libs or the Greens for any chance.
When corporations got their claws on Labour that is when Starmer dropped all his previous policies. He answers to his donors
This is why any vote for Starmer's Labour is essentially pointless. Great, we get rid of the Tories for the immediate short term future but they're just going to be back again in 5-10 years.
We're stuck in a cycle of the Tories looting the country for a decade or so, people getting sick and voting in Labour for a short while, and then going right back to the looting when people have forgotten. And what is Starmer offering to change this? But apparently you're a Tory if you don't think voting for this cycle to continue is a good idea
Because most people constantly vote for the two main parties, neither of whom want it!
There is always a FPTP system 'backlash' there alright, but its not from the majority and after Cameron's Brexit referendum debacle, the two larger parties are likely to follow W.C. Fields advice and ..."never give a sucker and even break".
Commitment to holding a referendum on whether we should switch from FPTP to a PR system was in the Labour manifesto for the 1997 election.
That was twenty six years ago and more importantly pre-Brexit referendum!
Cannot honestly see either major party offering a one off vote/referendum on FPTP, yes they might include such a offer in a manifesto but would be very surprised,if anything came of it. The Lib-Dem's as part of their coalition 'deal' with the Cameron Government did get some sort of 'half-hearted' alternative voting system agreed, but it never really got off the ground.
The truth is FPTP suits both Tories and Labour
Your argument in the bit I quoted was that people don't vote for parties who advocate for it - they did, 1997 saw Labour's highest vote share in modern history.
I don't disagree with your other point. Obviously when Labour won a massive majority under FPTP in 1997, Blair kicked PR into the long grass because he was more interested in ensuring he got another 4 years with a big majority than he was in delivering long-lasting positive change for the country.
Starmer is doing the same. He sees the continuation of the status quo for the foreseeable future as being a price he's willing to pay to rule the roost for as long as possible. When he eventually hands the keys back to the Tories it'll be us who pays the price, not him. I agree with you that it's predictable, that doesn't mean it's not bad.
I don't take part in this calling each other Tories nonsense, whether it's against lefties or the red Tory stuff. You should vote for who you think is best.This is why any vote for Starmer's Labour is essentially pointless. Great, we get rid of the Tories for the immediate short term future but they're just going to be back again in 5-10 years.
We're stuck in a cycle of the Tories looting the country for a decade or so, people getting sick and voting in Labour for a short while, and then going right back to the looting when people have forgotten. And what is Starmer offering to change this? But apparently you're a Tory if you don't think voting for this cycle to continue is a good idea
If, if, if, is basically his only argument.
This is a left-wing stance that suits the Tories. If he really thinks this way he is delluded.
I think this is the issue in a nutshell.
Something something he's just doing it to make Labour more electable.